Politician Won't Say Pledge -- May Be Recalled

[Garrette]

The Link (http://www.local6.com/news/3999438/detail.html)

Summary:

Council in Estes Park, Colorado, began saying Pledge of Allegiance last year to show support during wartime.

Councilman refuses to say it or stand during it.

Gives as his reason the words "under God."

Citizens are gathering signatures on a petition to force a recall.

---

My take:

I agree with the council member.

I also agree that the citizens have the right to force the recall, though I think they are demonstrating shortsightedness and closed mindedness and poor legal thought.

[Upchurch]

I find it admirable that the councilman is standing up for his convictions, but at the same time, that means accepting the consequences of those convictions. I'll be really disappointed if he backs down because of the threat of recall.

Incidently, I've been to Estas Park many, many times. It is a nice little place (although a bit tourist-y). Doesn't strike me as the kind of place that would be offended by something like this. I have to wonder how much support this recall effort really has. It will be interesting to see the results.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It will be interesting to see the results.
"He was elected and he's been "unelected (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3643872,00.html)".

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"He was elected and he's been "unelected (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3643872,00.html)".

Tell me if I'm reading this wrong, but he seems to have got MORE votes than the guy that has been elected to replace him.

Is there a separate recall vote and then an election (although both taking place at the same time) or is it just one vote?

If the recall vote is separate, can he stand as a candidate in the election caused by his own recall?

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Tell me if I'm reading this wrong, but he seems to have got MORE votes than the guy that has been elected to replace him.

Is there a separate recall vote and then an election (although both taking place at the same time) or is it just one vote?

If the recall vote is separate, can he stand as a candidate in the election caused by his own recall? I believe this was one, combined, vote. Interesting that 605 voters wanted to keep Habecker, while his replacement received 466 votes.

[Garrette]

I don't really find the numerical results that interesting.

The 600+ votes to retain Habecker were one part of the petition in which the voters basically had to say yes or no. He clearly lost.

The smaller number received by his replacement were in the second part of the petition; the replacement received a plurality of those votes.

---

Upchurch: I've been to Estes Park often, too. I used to live in Fort Collins.

Great place, but, yes, very touristy.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Garrette
I don't really find the numerical results that interesting.
Thanks I understand how things worked. It was interesting to me to know that more people who voted wanted Habecker to stay then wanted his replacement. But then I also found it interesting that more people who voted wanted Gore to be president then Bush. Not earth shattering, not complaining, just interesring :)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Garrette
I don't really find the numerical results that interesting.

The 600+ votes to retain Habecker were one part of the petition in which the voters basically had to say yes or no. He clearly lost.

The smaller number received by his replacement were in the second part of the petition; the replacement received a plurality of those votes.

---

Upchurch: I've been to Estes Park often, too. I used to live in Fort Collins.

Great place, but, yes, very touristy.

OK so it was separate votes. Was he entitled to take part in the second vote, or was he excluded due to having just been recalled?

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
OK so it was separate votes. Was he entitled to take part in the second vote, or was he excluded due to having just been recalled? More (http://www.eptrail.com/pages/02friday/fri01.html) details on the vote, it doesn't say but appears he was not allowed to participate in the replacement vote (unless he decided not to, but that seems unlikely).

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet:

OK so it was separate votes. Was he entitled to take part in the second vote, or was he excluded due to having just been recalled?

I don't know. Reading DavidJames' link leads me to think sort of the opposite:

To vote for the replacement you had to have voted on the recall part; I don't know if Habecker could vote on his own recall.

[crimresearch]

Well, I applaud him for having the courage of his convictions.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by crimresearch

Well, I applaud him for having the courage of his convictions.

Agreed.

According to the article, he is considering legal action.

Without knowing the legal merits of the case, but assuming in my layman's ignorance that they exist, I hope he proceeds.

The Supreme Court won't be able to deny hearing this based on him having no standing as they did in Newdow's case.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I find it admirable that the councilman is standing up for his convictions, . . . Actually he was refusing to stand up for his convictions. But we know what you meant.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by fishbob
Actually he was refusing to stand up for his convictions. But we know what you meant.

Most excellent!
:D

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Garrette
I don't know. Reading DavidJames' link leads me to think sort of the opposite:

To vote for the replacement you had to have voted on the recall part; I don't know if Habecker could vote on his own recall.

The thing that bothers me about these types of voting procedures is that the winner need only be supporting by a very small fraction of the voters.

Indiana tried to pull this type of process in order to get daylight savings time. The basically problem with getting daylight savings time in Indiana is that while a majority of the population is in favor, they can't agree on what time zone it should be. So consider a situation where 45% are fundamentally opposed, 28% want DST but only with the eastern time zone, and 27% want DST but only with the central time zone. All the previous times it goes up for a vote, it comes up as "Indiana will observe DST on the eastern time zone" and it gets defeated handily (72/28). The next bill comes up that says "Indiana will observe DST and be on the central time zone" and it gets defeated by about the same.

So this year, they had the strategy to first vote whether or not to switch to DST, and if that gets approved, then decide which time zone. Given the sentiment, it probably means that the eastern time zone will win out, as it probably has a slight preference with the voters if there had to be a choice. Of course, the opposition saw right through the process, and when combined, had a large enough block to prevent the first bill from even coming up, insisting (quite rightly, IMO), that any discussion on DST has to include a discussion of the time zone.

Given my (admittedly made up but representative) numbers above, you can see that by breaking it up this way, you could in principle be stuck with a policy that only 28% of the voters want, and that is in the case of a binary choice. If there are multiple options in step 2, you can end up electing person with only a fraction of the support that the recalled candidate had.

[Garrette]

I understand the complaint, pgwenthold, but I think that's a separate issue.

btw: I'm in Indiana. The rational part that's already on eastern time, all the time.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Garrette
I understand the complaint, pgwenthold, but I think that's a separate issue.

btw: I'm in Indiana. The rational part that's already on eastern time, all the time.

Central is better. :D

Just because Kentucky is making a mistake being in the eastern time zone doesn't mean that it is rational to make the same mistake (unless you are over by Cincinatti, in which case it does make sense to stick by Ohio)

And it's not a separate issue. It is the exact same thing. The guy got recalled, but had 600 votes in his favor. Assume that there were 700 votes in favor of recall. Therefore, the guy had the support of 46% of the voters.

The guy who won only got support from about 30% of the voters. Why should he get to be councilman?

I argue (just as with the DST question) that the question of a recall cannot be separated from the question of who is the replacement. If nothing else, the recalled candidate should be automatically placed on the ballot for re-election (in which it's not really a recall, but a re-vote)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Central is better. :D

Just because Kentucky is making a mistake being in the eastern time zone doesn't mean that it is rational to make the same mistake (unless you are over by Cincinatti, in which case it does make sense to stick by Ohio)

And it's not a separate issue. It is the exact same thing. The guy got recalled, but had 600 votes in his favor. Assume that there were 700 votes in favor of recall. Therefore, the guy had the support of 46% of the voters.

The guy who won only got support from about 30% of the voters. Why should he get to be councilman?

I argue (just as with the DST question) that the question of a recall cannot be separated from the question of who is the replacement. If nothing else, the recalled candidate should be automatically placed on the ballot for re-election (in which it's not really a recall, but a re-vote)

Not sure he should automatically be placed on the ballot, but I would certainly think he should be entitled to stand. If he then chooses not to, so be it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"He was elected and he's been "unelected (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3643872,00.html)". huh. I gotta say I'm a bit surprised. Long time ago, Estes Park used to be populated mostly with ex-hippie types, but I guess they've moved on down the road.

[Upchurch]

Whoops. Missed this little blurb from the article:
"The vote of the town isn't going to change my mind," said Habecker after the results were released. "The voters of Estes Park denied my constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion." As much as I sympathize with the guy, the voters did not deny him his right to freedom of speech/religion. What they did was deny him (or rather "revoke") the privilege of representing them in the city council. He still has the freedom to say or believe as he likes.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Whoops. Missed this little blurb from the article:
As much as I sympathize with the guy, the voters did not deny him his right to freedom of speech/religion. What they did was deny him (or rather "revoke") the privilege of representing them in the city council. He still has the freedom to say or believe as he likes.

Translation:

"We do not interfere with your freedom of speech/religion, but if you say/belive something we do not like, we will punish you."

Say again?

Mosquito

[crimresearch]

Well, there is an implied litmus test in being a representative....
ideally people might rise above that, and be happy to have completely independent minded representatives, but in reality they don't.

[SezMe]

The constitution says there shall be no religious test for serving in public office. Didn't this guy just have his constututional rights violated?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by SezMe
The constitution says there shall be no religious test for serving in public office. Didn't this guy just have his constututional rights violated?

No.

[gnome]

Originally posted by SezMe
The constitution says there shall be no religious test for serving in public office. Didn't this guy just have his constututional rights violated?

If the voters enforce a de facto religious test (is that the correct usage of the term?), then that is not unconstitutional.

However, if it is written into law, then it would be.

Personally I feel this coincilmember miscalculated. I would have chosen to state the pledge without "under god" in it, so that opponents would not be as easily able to attack my patriotism.

And if it's stupid that I should have to do that, I don't really mind doing so anyway since the secular pledge would be sincere.

[c0rbin]

What an unimaginative twit.

He could have easily said "One nation under the Constitution, with liberty and justice for all."

[Cleon]

Originally posted by SezMe
The constitution says there shall be no religious test for serving in public office. Didn't this guy just have his constututional rights violated?

Not really. There's nothing in the Constitution saying you have the right to be in office if the voters don't want you.

Think of it this way; would you rather have elected officials, complete with fickle voters, or would you rather have the courts decide who people may elect and why?

The second option bothers me more than a handful of voters making themselves look like idiots.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Translation:

"We do not interfere with your freedom of speech/religion, but if you say/belive something we do not like, we will punish you."

Say again? Nothing in the Constitution guarantees that there will be no consequences for things you say.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Nothing in the Constitution guarantees that there will be no consequences for things you say.

Only that you can say them.

Why are consequences a surprise to so many?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Nothing in the Constitution guarantees that there will be no consequences for things you say.

True, but playing devil's advocate--well, actually, I guess that would be angel's advocate, I agree with the guy, but since I don't think his rights are being violated--aw, screw it.

A point could be made that this is a slippery slope, and a jail term for certain kinds of speech is merely a "consequence" for saying the wrong thing.


"Oh, hey, Muhammed, you can say whatever you want, but the Constitution says nothing about freedom from consequences..."

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Cleon
True, but playing devil's advocate--well, actually, I guess that would be angel's advocate, I agree with the guy, but since I don't think his rights are being violated--aw, screw it.

A point could be made that this is a slippery slope, and a jail term for certain kinds of speech is merely a "consequence" for saying the wrong thing.



It's not the consequences that are the problem, it is who applies them.

Remember: the constitution tells the _government_ what it can and can't do, not the people.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Nothing in the Constitution guarantees that there will be no consequences for things you say.

While undoubtably true, how is this different from not having freedom of speech? In principle, that is, as I can understand practical differences. Where do you draw the line?
You have the right to say/believe A, but you'll loose your job.
You have the right to say/believe A, but we'll kick you out of town.
You have the right to say/believe A, but if you don't pay us 10% of your income in "protection tax" you will not be "protected".
You have the right to say/believe A, but if you get killed for it, we won't prosecute the killer.
You have the right to say/believe A, but you'll no longer be allowed the priviledge of walking outside this camp...

I may be wrong (and probably I am) but isn't this a case of a guy applying for a job, then he gets elected for the job. Later he is asked to pledge allegiance to some god he does not believe in, refuses to do so and thus is fired. Even though the contract he has says the job is his for the next x years.

I can understand a church using such a procedure for weeding out the unwanted elements, but the government? Isn't this pushing a particular religion (in practice)?

I also understand it if the voters don't want him to represent them, but in a democracy you'd have to wait for the next election, not just throw up a new election whenever somebody exercises his wrong religion so that you can fire him.

Why have terms of service if they only apply to candidates that have the right religion?

Mosquito (obviously not an expert on the constitution or the law)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Mosquito
While undoubtably true, how is this different from not having freedom of speech? In principle, that is, as I can understand practical differences. Where do you draw the line?


You draw the line when the government is the one taking action against you as a result of what you say.

It cannot be said enough -- (in the US,) "Constitutional rights" are just a list of things that the government is not allowed to do.




You have the right to say/believe A, but you'll loose your job.


If you're not employed by the government, this is fine.


You have the right to say/believe A, but we'll kick you out of town.


Since only the government would have this kind of authority, this isn't acceptable.


You have the right to say/believe A, but if you don't pay us 10% of your income in "protection tax" you will not be "protected".


Taxes are by definition charged by the government -- not okay.



You have the right to say/believe A, but if you get killed for it, we won't prosecute the killer.


Prosecution is by definition a government job -- not okay.


You have the right to say/believe A, but you'll no longer be allowed the priviledge of walking outside this camp...


Is is a government-run camp? Not okay.


I may be wrong (and probably I am) but isn't this a case of a guy applying for a job, then he gets elected for the job. Later he is asked to pledge allegiance to some god he does not believe in, refuses to do so and thus is fired. Even though the contract he has says the job is his for the next x years.


You're wrong. He was elected by the democratic process and can be unelected by the democratic process -- his "contract" specifically allows the people to remove him for whatever reason they see fit if enough people vote that way. That's what recall elections are for.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by new drkitten
You draw the line when the government is the one taking action against you as a result of what you say.

It cannot be said enough -- (in the US,) "Constitutional rights" are just a list of things that the government is not allowed to do.

If you're not employed by the government, this is fine.

Since only the government would have this kind of authority, this isn't acceptable.

Taxes are by definition charged by the government -- not okay.

Prosecution is by definition a government job -- not okay.

Is is a government-run camp? Not okay.

You're wrong. He was elected by the democratic process and can be unelected by the democratic process -- his "contract" specifically allows the people to remove him for whatever reason they see fit if enough people vote that way. That's what recall elections are for.

Sorry about my messed up quotes... My parts are missing, why?

I think I get the "constitution is the limitations of governmental power"-idea. Neat, but enough?

Ok, so the constitution says that the government can't take action against you for saying/believing A, but the public can... Are there things the public is not allowed to do in their quest to shut you up? Will the government protect you from actions that will hurt you, imposed by "the public" as a way of punishing you for being unacceptably different?

Can your bank increase your loan's interest rate?

Can the school lower the grades of your children?

About the camp... If it is a private camp, it is OK to lock you up?

And this recall election... That is a unknown term for me, could you explain it in simple terms?


Mosquito (Terminating his use of the term "term" before I am termed into a termite)

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by new drkitten
He was elected by the democratic process and can be unelected by the democratic process -- his "contract" specifically allows the people to remove him for whatever reason they see fit if enough people vote that way. That's what recall elections are for. I agree

Originally posted by new c0rbin
He could have easily said "One nation under the Constitution, with liberty and justice for all." I believe had he done that and had someone heard it, the results would have been about the same.

Of course he could have mumbled it and no one would have ever known.

God bless America, but mostly the red states.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Sorry about my messed up quotes... My parts are missing, why? Quotes on this board don't automatically nest. If you want more than the person you quoted's words, you have to add them yourself, I'm afraid.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Quotes on this board don't automatically nest. If you want more than the person you quoted's words, you have to add them yourself, I'm afraid.

I see. Too bad. More work for me.

Mosquito

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Mosquito

I think I get the "constitution is the limitations of governmental power"-idea. Neat, but enough?


No, which is why there are other branches of law than constitutional law.



Ok, so the constitution says that the government can't take action against you for saying/believing A, but the public can... Are there things the public is not allowed to do in their quest to shut you up?


Yes. For example, there are laws against assault (which means that if anyone assaults you, they will be subject to governmental action). This is called "criminal law."

There is also "civil law." If you feel someone has hurt you, you can take a private course of action and sue them in civil court.



Will the government protect you from actions that will hurt you, imposed by "the public" as a way of punishing you for being unacceptably different?


In general, yes. There are of course always pathological exceptions such as judges who take bribes. But those actions are themselves criminal actions, and the government will -- or should -- take action against them.


Can your bank increase your loan's interest rate?


Do you have a contract with the bank? This is called "contract law." If you were dumb enough to sign a contract with them that gives them the right to adjust your interest rate at will, then, yes,... because you agreed to it. If you didn't, then they're breaking their contract (and you can sue : see "civil law" above).


Can the school lower the grades of your children?


Does this hurt you? Then you can sue in civil court.


About the camp... If it is a private camp, it is OK to lock you up?


Did you consent to be locked up? If so, yes. if not, it's called "kidnapping."


And this recall election... That is a unknown term for me, could you explain it in simple terms?


It's a legal procedure by which the voters collectively can remove an elected official from office before his term is up. It's a relatively new procedure in US law and dates to the Progressive movement of the early 20th centuries. (The President of the United States, for example, cannot be "recalled" because the 18th century election laws governing his office don't permit it. He can, however, be "impeached" under the laws.)

The usual procedure is for a sufficiently large set of voters (how large that is depends upon the jurisdiction) to petition the government and request a special election. The most famous example is, of course, the 2003 election in which Gray Davis was removed from his office as Governor of California and replaced with The Governator (Arnold Schwartzenegger).

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by gnome
If the voters enforce a de facto religious test (is that the correct usage of the term?), then that is not unconstitutional.Except that the test originated from the government. Asking him to say the pledge was a government act, although the consequences were meted out by the voters. Suppose the council to pass the following law:
"Every council member shall be questioned as to his religious beliefs and practices. There will then be a special election, in which the voters, after being informed of the results of the above questioning, shall vote as to whether to recall each member." Constitutional?

Originally posted by Cleon
Think of it this way; would you rather have elected officials, complete with fickle voters, or would you rather have the courts decide who people may elect and why? False dichotomy. One is not required to choose between universal judicial oversight, and completely nonexistent oversight.

Originally posted by new drkitten
You draw the line when the government is the one taking action against you as a result of what you say.

It cannot be said enough -- (in the US,) "Constitutional rights" are just a list of things that the government is not allowed to do.Except that the central idea behind democracy is that the people are the government.

Originally posted by Upchurch
Quotes on this board don't automatically nest. If you want more than the person you quoted's words, you have to add them yourself, I'm afraid. Just in case there's any confusion: the "reply with quote" feature doesn't include anything in the original post which was within a quote. AFAIK, there are no problems with nesting quotes within your own post.

[Art Vandelay]

Reading through the article, it stinks even more. Apparently Lori Jeffrey-Clark, another board member, added the pledge last year. When Habecker refused to say it, Jeffrey-Clark's husband, Richard Clark, organized a recall. Habecker was then voted out 903 to 605 out of a possible 4000, or 22.6% to 15.1%. Seems more like a personal vendetta than "the will of the voters".

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Tell me if I'm reading this wrong, but he seems to have got MORE votes than the guy that has been elected to replace him.

Is there a separate recall vote and then an election (although both taking place at the same time) or is it just one vote?

If the recall vote is separate, can he stand as a candidate in the election caused by his own recall? Didn't we go through this with the Davis recall?

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by new drkitten

Do you have a contract with the bank? This is called "contract law." If you were dumb enough to sign a contract with them that gives them the right to adjust your interest rate at will, then, yes,... because you agreed to it. If you didn't, then they're breaking their contract (and you can sue : see "civil law" above).

<snippety>

It's a legal procedure by which the voters collectively can remove an elected official from office before his term is up. It's a relatively new procedure in US law and dates to the Progressive movement of the early 20th centuries. (The President of the United States, for example, cannot be "recalled" because the 18th century election laws governing his office don't permit it. He can, however, be "impeached" under the laws.)

The usual procedure is for a sufficiently large set of voters (how large that is depends upon the jurisdiction) to petition the government and request a special election. The most famous example is, of course, the 2003 election in which Gray Davis was removed from his office as Governor of California and replaced with The Governator (Arnold Schwartzenegger).

Hmm (nevermind my quotes, too lazy to include them).

So what you're saying is that when the public attacks you (in some form) you'll have to pay up (lawyers are not cheap) or shut up? Unless criminal law steps in, I presume?

Sounds like free speech is allowed, not protected*. But I'm probably not seeing the full picture.

About the bank contract... Does your bank allow you to get a contract that limits their ability to raise your interest rate? :jaw:

Mosquito (winner of thread. Victory by having learned about recall elections)

*Allowed - we do not shut you up.
Protected - we do not allow anyone to shut you up.+
+Note that this does not mean that anybody are forced to distribute your message.

[Mosquito]

About recalls...

Can any elected official be recalled? (Except the big P.)

Doesn't that effectively prevent them from making necessary/important but unpopular/not sufficiently popular decisions?

Your governor can't say no to creationism because he'll get kicked out of office mid term only to be replaced by some nut?

Nor can he impose regulations to reduce the pollutions from cars in cities...

And people wonder why politicians can't be trusted...

Mosquito (can't be trusted either)

[gnome]

Originally posted by Mosquito
While undoubtably true, how is this different from not having freedom of speech? In principle, that is, as I can understand practical differences. Where do you draw the line?
You have the right to say/believe A, but you'll loose your job.
You have the right to say/believe A, but we'll kick you out of town.
You have the right to say/believe A, but if you don't pay us 10% of your income in "protection tax" you will not be "protected".
You have the right to say/believe A, but if you get killed for it, we won't prosecute the killer.
You have the right to say/believe A, but you'll no longer be allowed the priviledge of walking outside this camp...

With the exception of the first option, each of these would represent actions of government, and thus be proscribed by the first amendment. In the case of the first option, there would be constraints in accordance with anti-discrimination laws.

Whereas, there are no legal restrictions on the reasoning behind a voter's choice, and it seems correct that it be so.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Except that the test originated from the government. Asking him to say the pledge was a government act, although the consequences were meted out by the voters. Suppose the council to pass the following law:
"Every council member shall be questioned as to his religious beliefs and practices. There will then be a special election, in which the voters, after being informed of the results of the above questioning, shall vote as to whether to recall each member." Constitutional?

Ohh... hadn't thought of it this way. Let me consider.

Such a resolution (as you described) would probably be found to be unconstitutional... though the original Pledge resolution, though logically equivalent, wouldn't be struck down by the courts because they recently ruled that "under God" is not an establishment of religion.

All I can respond is that the SC is wrong about their recent Pledge resolution.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

Except that the central idea behind democracy is that the people are the government.


... which is why the United States is not a democracy, but a republic.

[Kopji]

Estes Park residents should feel uncomfortable that someone who served them well for 12 years was subject to a recall for nothing. May they get the government they deserve.

The 'recall vote' is a popular little game played mostly in small town America. It wastes a lot of time and money. The idea is to force a special election with only one item on the agenda. It is then easy to drum up interest from whatever pulpit people are listening to you from, and get your way.

Recalls should be made much more difficult, or prevented entirely for something that obviously has religious or partisan overtones.

[thaiboxerken]

Hurrah, let's show any and all godless heathens that they are not welcome in the USA!!!

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Kopji
....The 'recall vote' is a popular little game played mostly in small town America. It wastes a lot of time and money. The idea is to force a special election with only one item on the agenda. It is then easy to drum up interest from whatever pulpit people are listening to you from, and get your way.

Recalls should be made much more difficult, or prevented entirely for something that obviously has religious or partisan overtones.

Well, living in a large city, with a tradition of corrupt politicians looting the till and raping the populace, I wish that recall elections were a *more* easily available remedy.

[CBL4]

Except that the test originated from the government. Asking him to say the pledge was a government act, although the consequences were meted out by the voters. Suppose the council to pass the following law:
"Every council member shall be questioned as to his religious beliefs and practices. There will then be a special election, in which the voters, after being informed of the results of the above questioning, shall vote as to whether to recall each member." Constitutional?This is an excellent point. It clearly shows why the under god part pledge is inappropriate.

Apparently Lori Jeffrey-Clark, another board member, added the pledge last year. When Habecker refused to say it, Jeffrey-Clark's husband, Richard Clark, organized a recall.Another excellent point.

This is the equivalent to requiring someone to verbally give support to some cause and if they refuse to face a recall election. I can imagine it being used by McCarthy supporters.

CBL

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Didn't we go through this with the Davis recall?

Possibly - but I didn't read it. Do you have a link?