Tuesday 29 November 2011

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.

science objective type questions

Geology Solved objective Test
Geology MCQ Practice Solved Questions
1 : The planets were formed from collisions and union numerous small planetary
fragments, was proposed by :
(a) Kant and laplace
(b) Moulton and chamblin
(c) Weizsacker
(d) G.P. Kuiper.
Answer ( B)


2 : The universe, solar system etc. are the result of an explosion within the nebula refers to:
(a) Planetesimal hypothesis
(b) Nebular hypothesis
(c) Big-Bang theory
(d) Tidal. Hypothesis.
Answer ( C)


3 : The planets become isolated masses of matter as the material of the solar-system
Condensed into the sun refers to :
(a) Evolutions theories
(b) Catastrophic theories
(c) Cosmic theories
(d) None of the above.
Answer (a)






4 : Who was the first man to give this present theory that sun is in centre and other
planets move around it. -
(a) Copernicus
(b) Kepler
(c) Aristotle
(d) None of the above.
Answer (A )


5 : Which of the following statements as regards the consequences of the movement of
The earth is not correct.
(a) Rotation of the earth is cause of day and night.
(b) Revolution of the earth is the cause of the change of the season.
(c) Rotation of the earth causes variation in the duration of day and night.
(d) Rotation of the earth affects the movement of wind and ocean currents.
Answer ( C )


6 : Severe thinking of ozone layer of its depletion, tenned as :
(a) Ozone depletion
(b) Ozone hole
(c) Black hole
(d) Ozone cancer.
Answer (B)



7: Ozone layer is found at the altitude of :
(a) 10 to 30 km. -
(B) 20 to 35 km
(C) 40 to 50 km
(D) 50 to 70 km. _
Answer ( B )


8 : What is the name of skin cancer caused by Ultraviolets - B rays :
(a) Melanoma
(b) Ozonite
(c) Epidemoric
(d) None of these.
Answer (a)


9 : Regarding age ot the Earth the average ann-ual rate of deposition of sediments and
the thickness of the all strata deposited during the whole geological history are used for :
(a) Verve-clock method.
(b) Sedimentation-clock method.
(C) salinity - clock method
(d) Non of the above
Answer (B)


10: Verve- clock method can be used for getting geologic- time from :
(a) 0 - 100 yrs. only QQ.
(b) 0 - 1,000 yrs. only
(c) 0 -- 10,000 yrs. only
(d) 0 -- 1,00,000 yrs. Only
Answer ( C)





11 : Lord Kelvin determined the age of the Earth by rate of cooling of the earth- is :
(a) 100 to 1000 m.y.
(b) 20 to 400 m.y.
(c) 120 to 500 m.y.
(d) 200 to 700 m.y.
Answer ( B)



12. : The detection of natural radioactivity given by:
(a) Alfred Nobel
(b) Madame Curie
(c) Nenri Becquerel ,
(d) Otto mahn.
Answer (C)






13 : The determination of the ratio of parent to daughter nuclides in radioactivity is
usually accomplished with the use of : '
(a) Geiger counter
(b) Mass spectrometer
(c) Oscillometer
(d) None of the above.
Answer ( B)


14 : The half-life period of U238 disintegrated to Pb206 is :
(a) 4000 my
(b) 4498 my
(c) 4628 my
(d) 5122 my
Answer (B)


15 : The valuable method, used to date the metamorphic rocks and Pre-combrian rocks
is :
(a)u238 - Pb206 .
(b)Th232 - Pb208
(c) Rb87 - Sr87
(d) K40 _ Ca40
Answer (C)


16: The atmospheric nitrogen, when attacked by cosmic radiation at high altitudes, gives
rise to :
(a) Carbon
(b) Radio-Carbon
(c) Carbon di-oxide
(d) Carbon mon-oxide.
Answer (B)






17 : During the radioactive transformation of uranium to lead, which gas is formed as an
Intermediate product:
(a) Helium `
(b) Hydrogen
(c) Radon
(d) Argon.
Answer (C)



18: A particle, equivalent to the nucleus of helium atom, which is emitted from an
atomic nucleus during radioactive decay is known as :
(a) Alpha particle
(b) Beta particle
(c) Gamma particle
(d) X-ray particle.
Answer (a)


19 : One of the smooth areas on the moon or on some other planets are known as :
(a) Mascons
(b) Mare
(c) Pluvial
(d) Horn.
Answer (B)





20: Magnetic North and South poles are presently located at :
(a) 70° N 100° w and 60° s 140° E
(b) 75° N 101° wand 67° S143° E
(c) 90° N 100° w and 60° s 150° E
(d) 86° N 109° w and 63° s 193° E
Answer (B)

yet to edit;);)

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]
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
Brief History:-
Recall has a history dating back to the ancient Athenian democracy[3] and is a feature of several contemporary constitutions.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
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:-
Concluding in the words of 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.”[9]
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
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. Recalls, which are initiated when sufficient voters sign a petition, have a history dating back to the ancient Athenian democracy[1] and is a feature of several contemporary constitutions.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Canada
• 2 Cuba
• 3 Switzerland
• 4 United States
o 4.1 Successful recalls
o 4.2 Unsuccessful recalls
o 4.3 Unsuccessful attempts to qualify recall elections
o 4.4 In Progress
• 5 Venezuela
• 6 See also
• 7 Bibliography
• 8 References

[edit] Canada
[edit] Cuba
The Constitution of Cuba has provisions for recall of elected officials.[2] Recall may either be proposed by 20% of delegates of their municipal assembly or 20% of voters in their electoral district.[3]
[edit] Switzerland
While recall referenda are not provided for at the federal level in Switzerland, six cantons allow them:[4]
• 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.[4]
[edit] 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.[5] 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.[6] 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.[7] 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. [2]
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.
[edit] Successful recalls
• 1911 recall of Hiram Gill, mayor of Seattle, Washington[8]
• 1916 recall of J. W. Robinson, mayor of Boise, Idaho[9]
• 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[10]
• 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[11]
• 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.[12]
• 2003 recall of Gray Davis, governor of California
• 2003 recall of Wisconsin State Senator Gary George[11]
• 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.[13]
• 2011 recall of multiple Killeen, Texas elected city officials including Mayor Pro Tem Scott Cosper and four city counsel members.[14]
• 2011 recall of Arizona state senator Russell Pearce for sponsoring Arizona's SB 1070.
• 2011 recall of Michigan Representative Paul Scott
[edit] Unsuccessful recalls
• 1932 recall election of Wisconsin State Senator Otto Mueller[15]
• 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[16]
• 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
[edit] Unsuccessful attempts to qualify recall elections
• 1967 United States Senator Frank Church of Idaho was the subject of an unsuccessful recall effort.[17] 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.[18]
• 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."[21]
• 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. [22]
[edit] 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
[edit] 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.
[edit] See also

Politics portal

General
• Motion of no confidence
• Ostracism, the process by which Athenians could ban a possible tyrant from the city
• Popular referendum
• Imperative mandate
Officeholders
What Is the History of Recall Elections?
Joshua Spivak
Mr. Spivak is an attorney in New York, and received a Master's in History from Brooklyn College. His Master's thesis explored the history of the recall.
Even though 26 states authorize the recall in some form, Gray Davis is only the second governor in U.S. history to face a recall vote. Despite its infrequently usage, the recall has a long, if spotty, history in America.
The recall has always been at the forefront of a fundamental question about the role of an elected officials, namely whether the official should act as a trustee and vote his own opinion or perform as a delegate and vote according to the wishes of his constituency. This long running debate continues to this day with criticism of poll-driven politicians. This clash of ideologies was much in evidence during the debate about the recall's place in the new U.S. Constitution.
The actual origins of the recall is shrouded in conjecture. Its modern day creator, Dr. John Randolph Haynes, claimed that it was "derived historically from Greek and Latin sources...." However, the authors of many of the works on the practice cite Haynes as expropriating the idea from the Swiss.
While the first instance of the recall can be found in the laws of the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony of 1631, and again in the Massachusetts Charter of 1691, the recall gained a firm footing in American politics with the democratic ideals that burst forth from the American Revolution. After declaring their independence, 11 of the 13 colonies wrote new constitutions, and many of these documents showed the new spirit of democracy. They specifically spelled out the laws in their constitution, which was a sharp departure from the unwritten British constitution. Most lessened the power of the executive and strengthened the legislature. Some opened up the right to vote to a larger portion of the population. And a few states wrote the recall into law as a method of controlling their elected representatives.
The states which adopted the recall were mainly concerned with the power of the representatives who served the states in the national government's congress. Unlike its modern day counterpart, the seventeenth and eighteenth century versions of the recall involved the removal of an official by another elected body, such as a state legislature recalling its United States senator. While this form provides a different relationship between the elected official and the general population the principles and the debates that engulfed the issue had not substantially changed.
The Revolution's success led the states to form a government under the Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781. The government under the Articles was weak and at the mercy of the individual states. Unsurprisingly, the recall was included in the Articles of Confederation. According to recall proponent and New York delegate John Lansing, the recall was never exercised by any of the states throughout the brief history of the Confederation.
As the Articles of Confederation government proved a failure in leading the new country, some of the brightest lights in America met in Philadelphia in 1787 and drafted the new Constitution. There is a plethora of materials on the Constitutional Convention, the debates surrounding its adoption, and its eventual impact. However, the issue of the recall has been mostly ignored, despite the fact that the idea was discussed. It was proposed by Edmund Randolph in his presentation of the Virginia Plan on May 29. The plan would have allowed the recall of the members of the first house of the legislature, who were directly elected by the people. On June 12, the convention passed Charles Pickney's motion to strike out the recall. The only other mention of the procedure in Madison's notes on the convention was a speech by future Vice President Elbridge Gerry exploring how the convention exceeded its mandate.
The argument for the recall was a strong component of the anti-federalist attack. The American Revolution was in many ways an attack on the existing power structure, or as Carl Becker said it was not just about home rule, but who rules at home. The new Constitution, in the view of many leading anti-federalists, was a conservative reaction to the American Revolution. One of the major opponents of the Constitution, Luther Martin, stressed the absence of a recall for senators, and the freedom from popular control that this absence represented, as a reason to reject the document. Martin was opposed to granting senators, who were elected by the state legislators and were seen as representing the more traditional aristocratic population, a large degree of freedom. He feared that senators would disregard their position as delegates of the people, and be free to work against the interests of their own states. Martin said: "Thus, sir, for six years, the senators are rendered totally and absolutely independent of their states, of whom they ought to be the representatives, without any bond or tie between them."
The idea of tightly binding the senators to their states was strongly opposed by the Federalists, most notably Alexander Hamilton. The topic gained new life when the Constitution was sent to the states to ratify. Each state elected a ratifying convention to approve or disapprove of the Constitution. Nine of the thirteen states votes were required for ratification. The topic took up several days of debate in the New York Ratifying Convention and was also proposed in the Massachusetts Convention. Using arguments that opponents of the recall would still be making more than a century later, Hamilton feared, that the recall "will render the senator a slave to all the capricious humors among the people."
In New York's Ratifying Convention on June 24, 1788, Gilbert Livingston introduced a measure calling for the recall of senators by state legislatures. Livingston was concerned that states would have "little or no check" on senators who have a six year term of office. John Lansing, an opponent of the new Constitution, said in words that echoed more than a century later, "they (the Senators) will lose their respect for the power from whom they receive their existence, and consequently disregard the great object for which they are instituted."
Hamilton denied the premise that the state legislatures would be more in tune with the will of the people, and argued that the recall would prevent the senators from being able to make difficult decisions. Hamilton said "… in whatever body the power of recall is vested, the senator will perpetually feel himself in such a state of vassalage and dependence, that he never can posses that firmness which is necessary to the discharge of his great duty to the Union."
By the time the New York Convention finally ratified the Constitution, enough states had ratified to form the government. However, there were still attempts to bring up various amendments to the new Constitution. Rhode Island, the last state to ratify in 1790, proposed 21 amendments, including granting state legislatures the power to recall their federal senators. However, the recall did not have the backing to continue as a major topic of debate after the failure of the anti-federalists. The recall of senators came up twice more, as the legislature in Virginia attempted to bring the topic up as a constitutional amendment in 1803 and 1808. The 1808 amendment was met by resolutions of disapproval from six states.
The recall received a considerable degree of support in America's early years. However, its proposed use as a weapon against the power of federal government officers failed to generate sufficient excitement to push its way through to adoption. With the Federalists' victory, the recall went into hibernation. It was not until the early part of the twentieth century, when the country was faced with a very different set of circumstances, that the recall reemerged as a viable political option. By that time, the field of debate had shifted to the state level, with the people themselves possessing the power of the recall. But the focus of the debates and the nature of the arguments had remained the same.
1 Comment
for
County, School District, Special District
and Local Judicial Offices
NOTE: Material in this guide originated with San Bernardino and Santa Cruz Elections Offices and has been adapted for use in Humboldt County. Every attempt has been made to assure state law has been correctly represented here. In the event of a conflict between anything contained herein and state law, the state law will prevail. The links below should be followed for a more detailed presentation of the state laws and Secretary of State’s procedures on recalls.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Use of This Guide
This guide is intended to provide basic, useful facts about the recall process for county, school district, special district, and trial court (Superior court) elected offices.
For recall of city officeholders, contact that city’s Office of the City Clerk directly.
For recall of state officeholders, see the "Procedure for Recalling State and Local Officials" published by the Office of the Secretary of State.
Federal officeholders are not subject to recall.
This guide should be used in conjunction with:
• The attached flow chart (Appendix A) titled, "Qualifying a Recall for the Ballot", which shows the process of preparing, circulating, and filing a recall petition, and continuing through qualifying and calling an election.
• The "Procedure for Recalling State and Local Officials" (current version), published by Office of the Secretary of State.
• The applicable sections of the California Elections Code, Government Code, California Constitution, etc.
• State law prohibits Elections Office staff from providing legal advice. The recall is a complex process; you may also want to contact a knowledgeable attorney for legal assistance.
Except as otherwise specified, code sections referred to with the section number symbol (§) will be those of the Elections Code.
Except as otherwise specified, references to the number of days means calendar days, as in " . . . the incumbent’s answer to notice of intention to recall, is due within seven [calendar] days after the filing of the notice of intention by the proponents."
2. 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."
3. Who Can be Recalled?
Any elective officer including any officer appointed in lieu of election or to fill vacancy. (§11006)
4. 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.
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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.
8. 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.
[ Back to Top ]
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.
[ Back to Top ]
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.
[ Back to Top ]
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.
[ Back to Top ]
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).
[ Back to Top ]
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).
[ Back to Top ]
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)).
[ Back to Top ]
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).
[ Back to Top ]
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).
[ Back to Top ]
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.
[ Back to Top ]
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 demands right to recall, reject
PTI
Share • print • T+
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.
Keywords: Right to recall, Citizen's Charter, Lokpal Bill, Anna Hazare, Team Anna
8
Ads by Google

Spoken

Right to ‘recall’ and ‘reject’ will not work
• Font Size
• Print

• 4 Comments
Rate this item

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
(5 votes)
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.
1. Introduction.

India is a constitutional democracy with a parliamentary system of government, and at the heart of the system is a commitment to hold regular, free and fair elections. These elections determine the composition of the government, the membership of the two houses of parliament, the state and union territory legislative assemblies, and the Presidency and vice-presidency.(Back)

2. Indian Elections -Scale of Operation.

Elections in India are events involving political mobilisation and organisational complexity on an amazing scale. In the 1996 election to Lok Sabha there were 1,269 candidates from 38 officially recognised national and state parties seeking election, 1,048 candidates from registered parties, not recognised and 10,635 independent candidates. A total number of 59,25,72,288 people voted. The Election Commission employed almost 40,00,000 people to run the election. A vast number if civilian police and security forces were deployed to ensure that the elections were carried out peacefully. The direct cost of organising the election amounted to approximately Rs. 5,180 million.(Back)

3. Constituencies & Reservation of Seats.

The country has been divided into 543 Parliamentary Constituencies, each of which returns one MP to the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Parliament. The size and shape of the parliamentary constituencies are determined by an independent Delimitation Commission, which aims to create constituencies which have roughly the same population, subject to geographical considerations and the boundaries of the states and administrative areas.(Back)

4. How Constituency Boundaries are drawn up?

Delimitation is the redrawing of the boundaries of parliamentary or assembly constituencies to make sure that there are, as near as practicable, the same number of people in each constituency. In India boundaries are meant to be examined after the ten-yearly census to reflect changes in population, for which Parliament by law establishes an independent Delimitation Commission, made up of the Chief Election Commissioner and two judges or ex-judges from the Supreme Court or High Court. However, under a constitutional amendment of 1976, delimitation was suspended until after the census of 2001, ostensibly so that states’ family-planning programmes would not affect their political representation in the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas. This has led to wide discrepancies in the size of constituencies, with the largest having over 25,00,000 electors, and the smallest less than 50,000.(Back)



Next >>




5. Reservation of Seats.

The Constitution puts a limit on the size of the Lok Sabha of 550 elected members, apart from two members who can be nominated by the President to represent the Anglo-Indian community. There are also provisions to ensure the representation of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, with reserved constituencies where only candidates from these communities can stand for election. There was an attempt to pass legislation to introduce reserved one third of the seats for female candidates but the dissolution of Lok Sabha for the 1998 election occurred before the bill had completed its passage through parliament.(Back)

6. Parliament.

The Parliament of the Union consists of the President, the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). The President is the head of state, and he appoints the Prime Minister, who runs the government, according to the political composition of the Lok Sabha. Although the government is headed by a Prime Minister, the Cabinet is the central decision making body of the government. Members of more than one party can make up a government, and although the governing parties may be a minority in the Lok Sabha, they can only govern as long as they have the confidence of a majority of MPs, the members of the Lok Sabha. As well as being the body, which determines whom, makes up the government, the Lok Sabha is the main legislative body, along with the Rajya Sabha.(Back)

7. Rajya Sabha - The Council of States.

The members of the Rajya Sabha are elected indirectly, rather than by the citizens at large. Rajya Sabha members are elected by each state Vidhan Sabha using the single transferable vote system. Unlike most federal systems, the number of members returned by each state is roughly in proportion to their population. At present there are 233 members of the Rajya Sabha elected by the Vidhan Sabhas, and there are also twelve members nominated by the President as representatives of literature, science, art and social services. Rajya Sabha members can serve for six years, and elections are staggered, with one third of the assembly being elected every 2 years.

Nominated members
The president can nominate 2 members of the Lok Sabha if it is felt that the representation of the Anglo-Indian community is inadequate, and 12 members of the Rajya Sabha, to represent literature, science, art and the social services.(Back)

8. State Assemblies.

India is a federal country, and the Constitution gives the states and union territories significant control over their own government. The Vidhan Sabhas (legislative assemblies) is directly elected bodies set up to carrying out the administration of the government in the 25 States of India. In some states there is a bicameral organisation of legislatures, with both an upper and Lower House. Two of the seven Union Territories viz., the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Pondicherry, have also legislative assemblies.

Elections to the Vidhan Sabhas are carried out in the same manner as for the Lok Sabha election, with the states and union territories divided into single-member constituencies, and the first-past-the-post electoral system used. The assemblies range in size, according to population. The largest Vidhan Sabha is for Uttar Pradesh, with 425 members; the smallest Pondicherry, with 30 members.(Back)



9. President and Vice-President.

The President is elected by the elected members of the Vidhan Sabhas, Lok Sabha, and Rajya Sabha, and serves for a period of 5 years (although they can stand for re-election). A formula is used to allocate votes so there is a balance between the population of each state and the number of votes assembly members from a state can cast, and to give an equal balance between state and national assembly Parliament members. If no candidate receives a majority of votes there is a system by which losing candidates are eliminated from the contest and votes for them transferred to other candidates, until one gain a majority. The Vice President is elected by a direct vote of all members elected and nominated, of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

The single transferable vote system. Election for the members of the Rajya Sabha and the President are carried out using the single transferable vote system. The single transferable vote system is designed to ensure more diverse representation, by reducing the opportunity for blocks of voters to dominate minorities. The ballot paper lists all candidates standing for election and the voters' list them in order of preference. A threshold number of votes, known as the ‘quota’ is set, which candidates have to achieve to be elected. For presidential elections the quota is set at one more than half the number of votes, ensuring that the winner is the candidate who gets a clear majority. For the Rajya Sabha the quota is set at the number of votes that can be attained by just enough MPs to fill all the seats but no more. Votes that are deemed surplus, those given to candidates who have already got a full quota of votes, or votes given to candidates who are deemed to be losing candidates, are transferred according to the voter’s listed preferences, until the right number of candidates have been elected.(Back)

10. Independent Election Commission.

An independent Election Commission has been established under the Constitution in order to carry out and regulate the holding of elections in India.

The Election Commission was established in accordance with the Constitution on 25th January 1950. Originally a Chief Election Commissioner ran the commission, but first in 1989 and later again in 1993 two additional Election Commissioners were appointed.

The Election Commission is responsible for the conduct of elections to parliament and state legislatures and to the offices of the President and Vice-President.

The Election Commission prepares, maintains and periodically updates the Electoral Roll, which shows who is entitled to vote, supervises the nomination of candidates, registers political parties, monitors the election campaign, including candidates’ funding. It also facilitates the coverage of the election process by the media, organises the polling booths where voting takes place, and looks after the counting of votes and the declaration of results. All this is done to ensure that elections can take place in an orderly and fair manner.

At present, there are two Election Commissioners appointed by the President. Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from office only by parliamentary impeachment.

The Commission decides most matters by consensus but in case of any dissension, the majority view prevails.

Election Commission :
Present composition Dr. M.S .GILL - Chief Election Commissioner
Dr. G.V.G. Krishnamurthy - Election Commissioner
Mr. J.M. Lynogdoh - Election Commissioner

Chief Election Commissioners :
Sukumar Sen : 21 March 1950 to 19 December 1958
KVK Sundaram : 20 December 1958 to 30 September 1967
SP Sen Verma : 1 October 1967 to 30 September 1972
Dr Nagendra Singh : 1 October 1972 to 6 February 1973
T Swaminathan : 7 February 1973 to 17 June 1977
SL Shakdhar : 18 June 1977 to 17 June 1982
RK Trivedi : 18 June 1982 to 31 December 1985
RVS Peri Sastri : 1 January 1986 to 25 November 1990
Smt VS Ramadevi : 26 November 1990 to 11 December 1990
TN Seshan : 12 December 1990 to 11 December 1996
MS Gill : 12 December 1996 to present

The Commission has its headquarters in New Delhi, with a Secretariat of some 300 staff members. At the state level a Chief Electoral Officer with a core staff of varying numbers, is available on a full time basis. At the district and constituency level, officers and staff of the civil administration double up as Election officials. During actual conduct of elections, a vast number of additional staff are temporarily drafted for about two weeks. They function mainly as polling and counting officials.(Back)





11. Who can vote?

The democratic system in India is based on the principle of universal adult suffrage; that any citizen over the age of 18 can vote in an election (before 1989 the age limit was 21). The right to vote is irrespective of caste, creed, religion or gender. Those who are deemed unsound of mind, and people convicted of certain criminal offences are not allowed to vote.

There has been a general increase in the number of people voting in Indian elections. In 1952 61.16 per cent of the electorate voted. By 1996 the turnout for the general election was 57.94 per cent. There have been even more rapid increases in the turnout of women and members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, who had tended to be far less likely to participate in elections, and voting for these groups has moved closer to the national average. (Back)

12. The Electoral Roll.

The electoral roll is a list of all people in the constituency who are registered to vote in Indian Elections. Only those people with their names on the electoral roll are allowed to vote. The electoral roll is normally revised every year to add the names of those who are to turn 18 on the 1st January of that year or have moved into a constituency and to remove the names of those who have died or moved out of a constituency. If you are eligible to vote and are not on the electoral roll, you can apply to the Electoral Registration Officer of the constituency, who will update the register. The updating of the Electoral Roll only stops during an election campaign, after the nominations for candidates have closed.(Back)

13. Computerisation of Rolls.

The Election Commission is currently undertaking the computerisation of the electoral rolls throughout India, which should lead to improvements in the accuracy and speed with which the electoral roll can be updated. This has already been completed in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh and the Eastern state of Tripura and Rolls in the new computerised format put to use for the general Election in 1998.(Back)

14. Electors' Photo Identity Cards.

In an attempt to improve the accuracy of the electoral roll and prevent electoral fraud, the Election Commission has pressed for the introduction of photo identity cards for voters. This is a massive task, and at present over 338 million have been provided. The Commission is providing ways and methods to deal with the problems with the issue of cards, and difficulties in keeping track of voters, especially the mobile urban electorate.(Back)






15. When do elections take place?

Elections for the Lok Sabha and every State Legislative Assembly have to take place every five years, unless called earlier. The President can dissolve Lok Sabha and call a general election before five years is up, if the government can no longer command the confidence of the Lok Sabha, and if there is no alternative government available to take over.

General elections to the Lok Sabha took place in 1952, 1957, 1962, 1967, 1971, 1977, 1980, 1984, 1989, 1991 and 1996, and the twelfth Lok Sabha general election is currently being held in February-March 1998. Governments have found it increasingly difficult to stay in power for the full term of a Lok Sabha in recent times, and so elections have often been held before the five-year limit has been reached. A constitutional amendment passed in 1975, as part of the government declared emergency, postponed the election due to be held in 1976. This amendment was later rescinded, and regular elections resumed in 1977.

Other measures have been taken to adjust the timetable of elections when civil unrest has made the holding of elections problematic. Disturbances in Jammu and Kashmir, the Punjab, and Assam have led to the postponement of elections. Holding of regular elections can only be stopped by means of a constitutional amendment and in consultation with the Election Commission, and it is recognised that interruptions of regular elections are acceptable only in extraordinary circumstances.(Back)

16. Scheduling the Elections.

When the five-year limit is up, or the legislature has been dissolved and new elections have been called, the Election Commission puts into effect the machinery for holding an election. The constitution states that there can be no longer than 6 months between the last session of the dissolved Lok Sabha and the recalling of the new House, so elections have to be concluded before then.

In a country as huge and diverse as India, finding a period when elections can be held throughout the country is not simple. The Election Commission, which decides the schedule for elections, has to take account of the weather - during winter constituencies may be snow-bound, and during the monsoon access to remote areas restricted -, the agricultural cycle - so that the planting or harvesting of crops is not disrupted, exam schedules - as schools are used as polling stations and teachers employed as election officials, and religious festivals and public holidays. On top of this there are the logistical difficulties that go with holding an election - sending out ballot boxes, setting up polling booths, recruiting officials to oversee the elections.(Back)

17. Who can stand for Election.

Any Indian citizen who is registered as a voter and is over 25 years of age is allowed to contest elections to the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assemblies. For the Rajya Sabha the age limit is 30 years. Candidates for the Rajya Sabha and Vidhan Sabha should be a resident of the same state as the constituency from which they wish to contest.

Every candidate has to make a deposit of Rs. 10,000/- for Lok Sabha election and 5,000/- for Rajya Sabha or Vidhan Sabha elections, except for candidates from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who pay half of these amounts. The deposit is returned if the candidate receives more than one-sixth of the total number of valid votes polled in the constituency. Nominations must be supported at least by one registered elector of the constituency, in the case of a candidate sponsored by a registered Party and by ten registered electors from the constituency in the case of other candidates. Returning Officers, appointed by the Election Commission, are put in charge to receive nominations of candidates in each constituency, and oversee the formalities of the election.

In a number of seats in the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabha, the candidates can only be from either one of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. The number of these reserved seats is meant to be approximately in proportion to the number of people from scheduled castes or scheduled tribes in each state. There are currently 79 seats reserved for the scheduled castes and 41 reserved for the scheduled tribes in the Lok Sabha. (Back)

18. Number of Candidates.

The number of candidates contesting each election has steadily increased. In the general election of 1952 the average number of candidates in each constituency was 3.8; by 1991 it had risen to 16.3, and in 1996 stood at 25.6. Some commentators have criticised the openness of the nomination process, arguing that it is far too easy for ‘frivolous’ candidates to stand for election, and that this confuses the electoral process. Certain remedial measures have been taken in August 1996, which included increasing the size of the deposit and making the number of people who have to nominate a candidate larger. The impact of such measures was quite considerable at the elections which were subsequently held in Uttar Pradesh in October, 1996, where the number of contestants Come down quite significantly. In 1998 the number of nominations for the Lok Sabha has come down to , an average of per constituency and % lower than the figures for 1996


19. Campaign.

The campaign is the period when the political parties put forward their candidates and arguments with which they hope to persuade people to vote for their candidates and parties. Candidates are given a week to put forward their nominations. These are scrutinised by the Returning Officers and if not found to be in order can be rejected after a summary hearing. Validly nominated candidates can withdraw within two days after nominations have been scrutinised. The official campaign lasts at least two weeks from the drawing up of the list of nominated candidates, and officially ends 48 hours before polling closes.

During the election campaign the political parties and contesting candidates are expected to abide by a Model Code of Conduct evolved by the Election Commission on the basis of a consensus among political parties. The model Code lays down broad guidelines as to how the political parties and candidates should conduct themselves during the election campaign. It is intended to maintain the election campaign on healthy lines, avoid clashes and conflicts between political parties or their supporters and to ensure peace and order during the campaign period and thereafter, until the results are declared. The model code also prescribes guidelines for the ruling party either at the Centre or in the State to ensure that a level field in maintained and that no cause is given for any complaint that the ruling party has used its official position for the purposes of its election campaign.

Once an election has been called, parties issue manifestos detailing the programmes they wish to implement if elected to government, the strengths of their leaders, and the failures of opposing parties and their leaders. Slogans are used to popularise and identify parties and issues, and pamphlets and posters distributed to the electorate. Rallies and meetings where the candidates try to persuade, cajole and enthuse supporters, and denigrate opponents, are held throughout the constituencies. Personal appeals and promises of reform are made, with candidates travelling the length and breadth of the constituency to try to influence as many potential supporters as possible. Party symbols abound, printed on posters and placards.(Back)

20. Polling Days.

Polling is normally held on a number of different days in different constituencies, to enable the security forces and those monitoring the election to keep law and order and ensure that voting during the election is fair.(Back)

21. Ballot Papers & Symbols.

After nomination of candidates is complete, a list of competing candidates is prepared by the Returning Officer, and ballot papers are printed. Ballot papers are printed with the names of the candidates (in languages set by the Election Commission) and the symbols allotted to each of the candidates. Candidates of recognised Parties are allotted their Party symbols. Some electors, including members of the armed forces or government of India.(Back)

22. How the voting takes place?

Voting is by secret ballot. Polling stations are usually set up in public institutions, such as schools and community halls. To enable as many electors as possible to vote, the officials of the Election Commission try to ensure that there is a polling station within 2km of every voter, and that no polling stations should have to deal with more than 1200 voters. Each polling station is open for at least 8 hours on the day of the election.

On entering the polling station, the elector is checked against the Electoral Roll, and allocated a ballot paper. The elector votes by marking the ballot paper with a rubber stamp on or near the symbol of the candidate of his choice, inside a screened compartment in the polling station. The voter then folds the ballot paper and inserts it in a common ballot box which is kept in full view of the Presiding Officer and polling agents of the candidates. This marking system eliminates the possibility of ballot papers being surreptitiously taken out of the polling station or not being put in the ballot box



23. Political Parties and Elections

Political parties are an established part of modern mass democracy, and the conduct of elections in India is largely dependent on the behaviour of political parties. Although many candidates for Indian elections are independent, the winning candidates for Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections usually stand as members of political parties, and opinion polls suggest that people tend to vote for a party rather than a particular candidate. Parties offer candidates organisational support, and by offering a broader election campaign, looking at the record of government and putting forward alternative proposals for government, help voters make a choice about how the government is run.(Back)

24. Registration with Election Commission.

Political parties have to be registered with the Election Commission. The Commission determines whether the party is structured and committed to principles of democracy, secularism and socialism in accordance with the Indian Constitution and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Parties are expected to hold organisational elections and have a written constitution. The Anti-defection law, passed in 1985, prevents MPs or MLAs elected as candidates from one party forming or joining a new party, unless they comprise more than one-third of the original party in the legislature.(Back)

25. Recognition and Reservation of Symbols.

According to certain criteria, set by the Election Commission regarding the length of political activity and success in elections, parties are categorised by the Commission as National or State parties, or simply declared registered-unrecognised parties. How a party is classified determines a party’s right to certain privileges, such as access to electoral rolls and provision of time for political broadcasts on the state-owned television and radio stations - All India Radio and Doordarshan - and also the important question of the allocation of the party symbol. Party symbols enable illiterate voters to identify the candidate of the party they wish to vote for. National parties are given a symbol that is for their use only, throughout the country. State parties have the sole use of a symbol in the state in which they are recognised as such Registered-unrecognised parties can choose a symbol from a selection of ‘free’ symbols.(Back)

26. Limit on poll expenses.

There are tight legal limits on the amount of money a candidate can spend during the election campaign. In most Lok Sabha constituencies the limit as recently amended in December, 1997 is Rs 15,00,000/-, although in some States the limit is Rs 6,00,000/- (for Vidhan Sabha elections the highest limit is Rs 6,00,000/-, the lowest Rs 3,00,000/-). Although supporters of a candidate can spend as much as they like to help out with a campaign, they have to get written permission of the candidate, and whilst parties are allowed to spend as much money on campaigns as they want, recent Supreme Court judgements have said that, unless a political party can specifically account for money spent during the campaign, it will consider any activities as being funded by the candidates and counting towards their election expenses. The accountability imposed on the candidates and parties has curtailed some of the more extravagant campaigning that was previously a part of Indian elections.(Back)

27. Free Campaign time on state owned electronic media.

By a recent order of the Election Commission, all recognised National and State parties have been allowed free access to the state owned electronic media-AIR and Doordarshan- on an extensive scale for their campaigns during elections. The total free time allocated extends over 122 hours on the state owned Television and Radio channels. This is allocated equitably by combining a base limit and additional time linked to poll performance of the party in recent election


28. Splits and mergers and anti-defection law.

Splits, mergers and alliances have frequently disrupted the compositions of political parties. This has led to a number of disputes over which section of a divided party gets to keep the party symbol, and how to classify the resulting parties in terms of national and state parties. The Election Commission has to resolve these disputes, although its decisions can be challenged in the courts. As of 1998 there are 7 National Parties, and 35 State Parties, with 620 registered-unrecognised parties.(Back)

29. Election Petitions.

Any elector or candidate can file an election petition if he or she thinks there has been malpractice during the election. An election petition is not an ordinary civil suit, but treated as a contest in which the whole constituency is involved. Election petitions are tried by the High Court of the State involved, and if upheld can even lead to the restaging of the election in that constituency. In the 1996 general election xx election petitions were upheld, and in x constituencies the result was countermanded and bye-elections held.(Back)

30. Supervising Elections, Election Observers.

The Election Commission appoints a large number of Observers to ensure that the campaign is conducted fairly, and that people are free to vote as they choose. Election expenditure Observers keeps a check on the amount that each candidate and party spends on the election.(Back)

31. Counting of Votes.

After the polling has finished, the votes are counted under the supervision of Returning Officers and Observers appointed by the Election Commission. After the counting of votes is over, the Returning Officer declares the name of the candidate to whom the largest number of votes have been given as the winner, and as having been returned by the constituency to the concerned house.(Back)

32. Media Coverage.

In order to bring as much transparency as possible to the electoral process, the media are encouraged and provided with facilities to cover the election, although subject to maintaining the secrecy of the vote. Media persons are given special passes to enter polling stations to cover the poll process and the counting halls during the actual counting of votes.

Media are also free to conduct Opinion Polls and Exit Polls. By a recent set of Guideline issued, the Election Commission has stipulated that the results of opinion polls can not be published between two days before the start of polling and after the close of poll in any of the constituencies. Results of exit polls can only be published or made otherwise known only after half an hour of the end of polling hours on the last day of poll 28th of February in the present election of 1998.(Back)

33. Parliament.

The Parliament of the Union consists of the President, the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). The President is the head of state, and he appoints the Prime Minister, who runs the government, according to the political composition of the Lok Sabha. Although the government is headed by a Prime Minister, the Cabinet is the central decision making body of the government. Members of more than one party can make up a government, and although the governing parties may be a minority in the Lok Sabha, they can only govern as long as they have the confidence of a majority of MPs, the members of the Lok Sabha. As well as being the body, which determines whom, makes up the government, the Lok Sabha is the main legislative body, along with the Rajya Sabha



15th Lok Sabha Elections Results to be announced on 16th May 2009.
Click here for more information.


34. The Electronic Voting Machine – An Electronic Marvel.

Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) retains all the characteristics of voting by ballot papers, while making polling a lot more expedient. Being fast and absolutely reliable, the EVM saves considerable time, money and manpower. And, of course, helps maintain total voting secrecy without the use of ballot papers. The EVM is 100 per cent tamper proof. And, at the end of the polling, just press a button and there you have the results.

What does an EVM unit comprise of ?
The EVM consists of two units that can be inter-linked. One, a ballot unit which a voter uses to exercise his vote. And the other, a control unit – used by the polling officials.

The Ballot Unit : An electronic ballot box.
A simple voting device, it displays the list of candidates. A facility to incorporate party names and symbols is in-built. All the voter has to do is press the desired switch located next to the name of each candidate. The main advantage is the speed, apart from the simplicity of operation, which requires no training at all. A single ballot unit takes in the names of 16 candidates. And thus, by connecting four ballot units the EVM can accommodate a total of 64 candidates in a single election.

The control Unit : In Total control of the polling
Conduction of polling, display of total votes polled, sealing at the end of the poll, and finally, declaration of results – these are the various accomplishments of just one gadget : the control unit. In total control of the polling, this electronic unit gives you all necessary information at a press of a few buttons. For instance, if you need to know the total number of votes, you just have to press the Total switch. Candidates-wise results can be had only at the end of polling.

Independent & Reliable
The EVM is compact and comes in its reusable carry pack. Further, the EVM works/operates on a battery power source. Making it independent and totally reliable.

Hi-tech Simplicity
To commence polling, the polling officer activates the "Ballot" switch on the control unit. The voter then has to press the button of his choice on the ballot unit. This is followed by a short beep sound, indicating that the vote has been cast. Once again, the polling officer has to press the "Ballot" switch to clear the machine for the next voter to cast his vote.

Super-sensitive circuitry : No invalid votes
Inside the control unit, hidden from you, is an extremely sensitive circuitry that takes care of common election errors or malpractices like vote duplication. For instance, if one were to press two or more buttons simultaneously, then no vote would be cast. Even if there was a micro-second difference in the pressing of the switches, the EVM is sensitive enough to trace and identify the twitch that was press first.

Instant results
Once polling is completed, the election results can be known instantly at the counting station by pressing the '‘Result'’switch. This switch is located in a sealed compartment of the control unit.

Tamper proof design
The EVM is designed to be totally tamper proof. Each EVM comes with a sophisticated programme in assembly language : a software fully seated against outside influence. And the programme is itself fused on to a customised micro processor chip at the manufacturer’s end. This ensures that the program is rendered tamper proof and inaccessible.

Result Printout
Normally, an EVM displays results on the display panel of the control unit. But a printout option is available with the use of a Download Adaptor Unit (DAU). The DAU has to be connected to the control unit and any standard printer. Further, with the help of a modem, the DAU can also enable transmission of voting information to a distant centralised computer.

How To Cast Vote Through Electornic Voting Machine
A. Voter will be called by name as usual to put his signature on Voting Register.
B. Electoral Officer will put special ink on his finger as usual.
C. Electoral Officer will hand over a slip containing voter’s serial number as shown in the Voter Register.
D. Voter will hand over the slip to Presiding Officer . He will satisfy himself about the genuineness of the particulars of the voter.
E. After all these formalities, voter will be asked to reach at Electronic Voting Machine kept in a corner covered from sides to maintain secrecy of the vote.
F. Voting Machine will contain candidates name and symbol against each name. There will be a red light and a blue button. Voter shall have to press the blue button against the candidate of the choice. Red light will appear on the pressing of blue button and sound like whistle will also be heard which will indicate that the ballot has been casted. If red light does not appear voter can press the blue button again




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.