Recall campaigns in Nebraska
|Recalls by state|
|Recalls by year|
|Recalls by type|
= 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
|District of Columbia||3||1||0||0|
recalled from office. Officeholders in Arkansas, California, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Nebraska will fight to be retained by voters. Below is a breakdown of the recall action in each state.
By Kyle Maichle
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.
State Senator Brenda Council is the sponsor of Legislative Bills 187 and 188. 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. 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.
Lynn Rex, Executive Director of the Nebraska League of Municipalities, spoke in favor of the bills. Rex said: "we've seen a lot of abuse in this state," and argued that the bills "would help fix a broken system." 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."
Senator Avery, who chairs the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee, said that the current process “permits and promotes” frivolous recalls. Avery considers the Suttle recall in that category.
The committee took no action on the bills.
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.
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.