Does your state lean blue or lean red? Check out our new report, highlighting partisan control of state government from 1992-2013.
Recall campaigns in Nebraska
|
| Historical recalls |
|---|
| Recall news |
| Recall laws |
| Recall portal |
Legend:
= The recall target was recalled by voters.
= When a recall vote was held, voters rejected the attempt to recall the politician (that is, voters decided to keep/retain the targeted politician).
= The recall effort did not collect enough signatures to force a recall vote.
= The targeted politician resigned after a recall campaign was begun, and before the vote on the recall would have taken place.
= A judge prevented the recall from going forward.
= A recall election is scheduled.
Union: David Chipman, Dwain "Butch" Hardbarger Jr. and Paul Vidlak
York County: Bill Sutter
Wymore: Dan Hawkins
Chadron: John Chizek and Steve Duncan
Dodge School Board: Brian Doernemann, Dan Wisnieski, and Tim Meyer
Omaha: Jim Suttle
Decatur: Jim Nicola
Hitchock County: Mike Baker, Larry Ferguson, and Gary Matson
Ballotpedia's 2012 Recall Analysis
| State | Targeted officials | Recalled | Retained | Resigned |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arkansas | 9 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| Alaska | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | 19 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| California | 87 | 11 | 4 | 6 |
| Colorado | 16 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| District of Columbia | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Florida | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Georgia | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Idaho | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Kansas | 10 | 5 | 4 | 0 |
| Louisiana | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Maine | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Michigan | 79 | 5 | 13 | 3 |
| Minnesota | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Montana | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Nebraska | 9 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Nevada | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| North Dakota | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Ohio | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Oregon | 24 | 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Rhode Island | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Texas | 17 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Washington | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| West Virginia | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 12 | 3 | 4 | 1 |
| Total | 370 | 54 | 54 | 24 |
Total recall: 22 local officials face day of reckoning on November 6
Nebraska lawmakers consider local recall bill
By Kyle Maichle
LINCOLN, Nebraska: The leader of the Jim Suttle recall effort is urging Nebraska legislators to not make recalls of local elected officials more difficult. [1]
Jeremy Aspen said: "there has got to be recourse for inactivity, lies, or inability to run the city." Aspen testified in front of the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee on January 28, 2011 to oppose three bills that would increase recall requirements. [1]
State Senator Brenda Council is the sponsor of Legislative Bills 187 and 188. [1] The two bills would increase the required number of signatures for recall petitions and only allow citizens to sign a petition if they have voted when the recall target was elected. [1] State Senator Bill Avery is sponsoring Legislative Bill 224. LB 224 would only allow recalls on elected officials if they committed serious wrongdoing in office. [1]
Lynn Rex, Executive Director of the Nebraska League of Municipalities, spoke in favor of the bills. [1] Rex said: "we've seen a lot of abuse in this state," and argued that the bills "would help fix a broken system." [1] The Executive Director told the Omaha World-Herald that recalls have been launched in Nebraska towns over issues like a crackdown on junk cars and felt that "the attempts take time and energy away from city business." [1]
Senator Avery, who chairs the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee, said that the current process “permits and promotes” frivolous recalls. [1] Avery considers the Suttle recall in that category. [1]
The committee took no action on the bills. [1]
BREAKING: First results are in for Omaha mayoral recall election
By Eileen McGuire-Mahony
- 9:30 results put Suttle ahead by only TWO Votes: 28,351 to 28,349, with 133 of 284 precincts reporting
OMAHA, Nebraska: According to those inside his camp, Jim Suttle feels good about holding to his office. But he's still watching results come in from the comfort of a private banquet room at Clancy's bar. In the main section, his rank and file supporters are also attuned to precinct reports trickling in from around the city.
The very first results came in just after polls closed at 8pm, 50.5% to keep Suttle in power and 49.5% to recall him; the difference in votes was a tiny 283. Within the hour, the next round of figures came in; Suttle's tiny lead had been erased, but barely. The recall was ahead by a painfully thin margin, 50.4% to 49.6%, or 306 votes. [2]
The first wave of returns represented the first ballots cast today, from about 8am to 2pm. The second round of results, published 45 minutes later, included more the day's turnout and some early voting numbers.
That the gap did not meaningfully change while more returns came in would seem to confirm the opinion going into today; this will be an election driven by turnout and decided on a slender margin. In such a case, until the election is decided, both sides are anxious. Watching the same set of early numbers that had Suttle feeling upbeat but still keeping to his private room, recall leaders Jim Aspen and David Nabity, setting up at La Casa Pizzaria to watch returns with other recall activists, admitted to some anxiety. There was also cheering scattered among the crowd when fresh results gave them a tiny lead.
The next round of results is a quarter of an hours away and no one is saying if it will begin a comfortable win for someone or more nail biting.
As early voting in Suttle recall continues, DA Klein asks for investigation into voter fraud
OMAHA, Nebraska: As early voting continued in the January 25, 2011 recall election of Jim Suttle, allegations surfaced that Omaha Forward, the group supporting the recall, may have crossed a legal line when they paid homeless people $5.00 for activities related to the election. It was reported by the Omaha World Herald that:
"A group funded by the mayor on Wednesday picked up and drove three busloads of people — many of them homeless — to the Douglas County Election Commissioner's Office in west Omaha. Some of the homeless were paid $5 by Forward Omaha, the main group opposing the effort to recall the mayor — and a group that has Suttle's backing. One homeless man, Michael Sergeon, first told reporters he was paid $5 to vote. A few minutes later, Sergeon retracted his statement, saying he was paid $5 to hand out brochures for the campaign." [3]
A spokesman for the Mayor Suttle Recall Committee said, "If they're taking people to the polls because there is a valid need, it's noble. But if they're taking advantage of vulnerable people and coaching them, that's wrong." [3]
On January 13, 2011, Mayor Suttle's office issued a statement that said that combining transportation and recruitment,as Forward Omaha did, was an "error in judgment." [4]
However, by the time the statement was issued, KETV NewsWatch 7 reported that Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine had asked the Nebraska State Patrol to investigate allegations of voter fraud that arose when it was learned that Forward Omaha had "bus[ed] homeless people to vote and then [paid] them to train as election workers." [5]
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 Omaha World-Herald "Local recall bills debated" 29 Jan. 2011
- ↑ KETV.com, "Omaha Mayoral Recall Election ", live stream on 25 Jan. 2011
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Omaha World Herald, "Group backing Suttle gives homeless rides; some get $5" 13 Jan. 2011
- ↑ Columbus Telegram, "Mayor says busing incident a mistake" 13 Jan. 2011
- ↑ KETV NewsWatch 7, "Kleine Asks For Investigation Into 'Forward Omaha'" 13 Jan. 2011
See also
| |||||||||||||
