Jim Suttle recall, Omaha, Nebraska (2010-2011)

• Recall efforts
  • Recall efforts by state
  • Recall efforts by office
  • Recall efforts by year
  • Upcoming recall elections
• Local recalls
  • City council recalls
  • Mayoral recalls
  • County commission recalls
  • County official recalls
  • School board recalls
  • Sheriff recalls
  • Special district recalls
• State and federal recalls
  • State executive recalls
  • State legislator recalls
  • U.S. Congress recalls
• Laws governing recall
  • States that have pre-petition signature requirements for recalls
  • States that require grounds for recalls
• Analysis
  • What are recalls?
  • Recall terms
  • Analysis (2010-present)
  • 2025 mid-year analysis
  • 2024 year-end analysis
  • 2024 mid-year analysis
  • 2023 year-end analysis
  • 2023 mid-year analysis
  • 2022 year-end analysis
  • 2022 mid-year analysis
  • 2021 year-end analysis
  • 2021 mid-year analysis
  • 2020 year-end analysis
  • 2020 mid-year analysis
  • 2019 year-end analysis
  • 2019 mid-year analysis
  • 2018 year-end analysis
  • 2018 mid-year analysis
  • 2017 year-end analysis
  • 2017 mid-year analysis
  • 2016 year-end analysis
  • 2016 mid-year analysis

Omaha Mayor recall
Officeholders
Jim Suttle
Recall status
Recall defeated
Recall election date
January 25, 2011
See also
Recall overview Political recall efforts, 2011 Recalls in Nebraska Nebraska recall laws Mayoral recalls Recall reports

A vote about whether to recall Jim Suttle from his position as mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, took place on January 25, 2011. Mayor Suttle retained his seat in the election.

Suttle, a Democrat, was elected as the Mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, in June 2009. Recall supporters cited citizen discontent with Suttle's performance as the reason for the recall, including his handling of a police pensions deal and increased tax rates in the 2011 budget.

The recall effort attracted national attention and was cited by news sources such as Reuters and the New York Times as evidence of the growing use of recall amidst city budget problems and voter anger.

Election results

Final numbers:

• Votes to recall Suttle: 39,833 (48.6%) d
• Votes to retain Suttle: 42,128 (51.4%) a

Suttle's tenure

Taxation

During Suttle's mayoral tenure, property taxes increased 15%. The tax on cars increased from $35 to $50 and restaurant taxes increased 2.5%. Collectively, Omahans paid $32.9 million in 2011 for those three items.

Omaha eatery owners met with Suttle in the spring of 2010, after the Omaha City Council had rejected an earlier plan for an entertainment tax. That proposal would have taxed restaurant meals, concert tickets, and other items. Shortly after meeting with the Omaha Restaurant Association, Suttle announced the 2.5% tax on restaurants only.

Background

2009 recall effort

A poll executed by the Omaha Police Department asked residents in the Nebraska city whether or not Suttle should be the target of a recall effort. Suttle was in the fourth month of his term in office and was just one of several topics brought up by the 25 minute phone survey, according to police union president Aaron Hanson.

According to reports, Hanson was asked whether or not the recall question was a tactic in the then-ongoing police contract negotiations; he declined to answer. Hanson also declined to give the results of the survey.

According to Hanson: “The buzz is there. There’s been discussion in certain circles....[we] wanted to take the pulse of the city of Omaha on a multitude of issues that are high priority today.”

According to resident Mark Paulsen, he stated he received a phone call on the evening of November 23, 2009. The caller stated that he was with a research group but declined to state who was funding the survey. According to Paulsen, “It was a survey about how the city was being run and my opinions about the mayor, questions if I would support a recall, if I would sign a recall. I think they're pro-recall, even though they didn't persuade me one way or another, their questions led you down a certain road, and that road was to recall the mayor."

Recall affidavit

The first sign of a recall came in July 2010, when a legislative candidate, Anthony FastHorse, filed an affidavit for a recall with the Douglas County Courts. At that point, Mayor Suttle had 20 days to give a written reply. After that, FastHorse was legally able to pick up petitions and begin gathering signatures. Petitioners had 30 days to submit close to 27,000 valid signatures in order to move on to the next stage.

FastHorse told reporters he was frustrated by Suttle's proposal to meet a $33.5 million budget shortfall primarily with tax increases and that he felt the Mayor was unwilling to listen to citizen input.

When, as July closed, Suttle went before 300 Omaha voters to defend his budget proposal for 2011, one man stood up and suggested the politician resign. The comment brought sustained applause. Containing $44 million in new taxes, the budget included pensions for police and firefighters and raises for the Mayor's private staff.

However, citing the need for more time to organize the petitioning effort, FastHorse withdrew his request the following month.

Recall committee formation

By mid-August, those in favor of removing Suttle from office had raised enough money that they were legally required to file with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission. The Mayor Suttle Recall Committee went public on August 26, 2010.

Around the same time, a second recall effort, that named Suttle along with two Omaha City Council members, was in the works. However, Lowen Kruse, a former state Senator who named his group the Omaha Citizens Coalition, was explicit that he wanted to promote debate but did not seek to remove anyone from office.

Shortly after Labor Day, the recall effort went online, at www.mayorsuttlerecall.com . The page accepted donations and asked for volunteers to act as petition circulators, it being illegal under Nebraska law to pay such workers.

Having monitored support among voters, the recall committee publicly announced, on September 20, 2010, it would indeed gather signatures.

On the morning the group affirmed it would petition voters, leadership announced the group had $35,000 and 150 volunteers. The same day, a Douglas County Election Commission spokesman said that Suttle took office in the midst of a financial meltdown. Democrats in Douglas and Lincoln counties suggested that the recall was motivated by a partisan agenda and said recalling an elected official undermined Democratic principles.

Opposition to recall

Dick Holland, a retired executive and Omaha philanthropist, announced the formation of The Committee to Keep Omaha Moving Forward, a political entity designed to counter the work of the recall committee. Holland said recalls ought to be limited to crimes committed in office rather than voter dissatisfaction with tax increases. State Senator Brad Ashford (R) announced he would back efforts to block the recall. Holland's group later shortened its name to 'Forward Omaha' and registered www.jimsuttle.com as its online hub.

Anti-recall ads

With petitioners set to go to work one week before the midterm elections, Forward Omaha began airing a 30 television clip five days out. While it never mentioned Suttle by name, the ad told viewers that, “On Election Day someone might illegally try to get you to sign a petition.”.

Anti-Recall Effort Starts

Days later, Jerry Aspen, co-chair and spokesman of the Recall Committee, confirmed his group would be following all laws about polling place behavior and petitioning. He told media that his group had 300 volunteers ready to go for Election Day.

Aspen's statement came after allegations that petitioners supporting the recall harassed members of the public while signature gathering at a sporting event, when. Members of Holland's group were not at the event as organized monitors but as observers, something that led to their undertaking such plans for election day. Ahead of the Omaha Nighthawks game, held October 27, 2010, Mayor Suttle had asked for a set of agreed upon rules in petitioning. Jerry Aspen declined, saying manners and common sense were all volunteers needed as they collected signatures and that Suttle's desire to set ground rules was really an attempt to manipulate the petition process.

Citizens in Charge head Paul Jacobs consulted for recall organizers and introduced the idea of having petitioners set up recognizable booths in central areas, a move organizers credited with putting them over the top.

Events in campaign

Recall advocates begin paying circulators

The recall effort, on November 10, 2010, announced it would begin paying workers. At the time, they had only nine days left to turn in the necessary signatures. Spokesman Jerry Aspen did not state how many signatures his groups already had or how close to the 26,642 threshold they were.

Lawsuits

Following the November 19, 2010, deadline for the Recall Committee to finish gathering signatures, Douglas County's Election Commission had 15 days to review the signatures. Working over the Thanksgiving holiday, overtime costs came to $32,400 for election staffers to assess and validate signatures.

While waiting to hear the Election Commissioner's ruling on signatures, Suttle gave an interview to The Knowledge Network, in which he admitted his office needed to do a better job with public relations and spoke to the issue of a broken campaign promise. Suttle had campaigned on cutting property taxes, but his budget for 2011 had raised them. He defended this by saying he had no clear idea of the severity of Omaha's financial situation until after he was elected, when he sat down with the outgoing mayor to look at the city's debts and obligations.

During that same time, Suttle and his allies filed two lawsuits. The first, to expand the time available for examining signatures, failed. However, they were successful on the second case, a bid to procure a hearing for fraud allegations against petition circulators. In response to complaints that volunteers gathering signatures misrepresented Suttle's taxation schemes and improperly altered completed sheets of signatures, a December 20, 2010 hearing was scheduled.

During testimony, the recall group's expert, Paul Jacobs, testified that all signature gatherers has been schooled in petition law and had followed rules when gathering signatures. Specifically, he repudiated the testimony of petition circulators who said they were paid by the signature and given quotas to meet. Speaking to press outside the courtroom, Jacobs described Suttle's efforts as a sideshow designed to distract from the material facts behind the recall effort.

Dave Phipps, Election Commissioner for Douglas County, delivered a letter on December 13, 2010 stating his opinion that the petitioners had enough valid signatures to force an election. At that point, Suttle had five days to tender his resignation if he wished to avoid the recall election. The Mayor immediately announced he would not resign.

Gary Gernandt, President of the Omaha City Council, the man who would become acting Mayor in the event of a recall, said he did not feel Suttle's resignation was warranted. Gerandt said Suttle had not violated any law, though he said he would step in as Mayor pro tem if he had to.

Court decision

Three days of testimony led to a judge's decision, just before Christmas, that the recall election would proceed, with the date set for January 25, 2011. Mayor Suttle was not in the courtroom to hear the decision and reiterated his stance that he would not resign. The Mayor's attorney, Vince Powers , stated he would not appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

While January 25, 2011, had been the expected recall date, it was officially set as the date by the Omaha City Council, which met on December 21, 2010 and voted 6-1 to set the date. Councilman Ben Gray voted in opposition, not from any problem with the date but from a belief that the recall ought not go forward.

Petitioners' efforts garnered 37,000 signatures. With 28,720 authenticated by state election workers, Suttle claimed some signatures were fraudulent. In support of his claim, he called half a dozen signatories who said their signatures were in fact forged, two circulators who testified they were illegally paid by the signature, and a handwriting expert who argued that numerous signatures were forged.

In making his decision, Peter Bataillon, a District Judge for Douglas County, noted that even giving Suttle's legal team the benefit of the doubt and throwing out some 1,700 signatures, petitioners still had enough valid names to force the election. Legally, the recall team only needed 26,642 signatures.

The legal action also opened up an avenue for the Nevada Supreme Court to address the law surrounding compensation for signature gatherers. Currently, they may be paid an hourly wage but they may not be offered a commission contingent on gathering certain numbers of signatures, nor may they be paid a flat fee per signature. The Recall Committee agreed it paid workers by the hours but denied the story of one worker that he was eventually switched to a payment scheme where he was compensated for each signature.

Suttle campaign and homeless voters

Suttle address the homeless allegations

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."

The voters were transported from a local shelter, the Siena-Francis House, to polling place for January 12, 2011 early voting. That the people brought in by bus both voted and participated in recruitment and training activities became a core part of complaints.

One participant said a woman stood next to the bus as people exited, telling each person to vote "no" and that the same woman stayed near the groups as they approached voting booths, once more telling them to vote against the recall.

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."

Suttle's initial reaction to the move had been to point to veteran status of many homeless citizens of Omaha, saying, "They’ve served in our military. They’ve fallen on hard times. Don’t they have a right to vote?"

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.

The remainder of the early voting week saw a spike in turnout. Douglas County Election Commissioner Dave Phipps also reported being approached by people who said they wanted to change their vote, either claiming to have been coached into voting or wanting to change their choice after hearing the story.

Legal implications

Bribing someone for a vote is only a misdemeanor under Nebraska law. The Nebraska State Patrol launched an investigation but indicated it was not likely to wrap up ahead of the recall election. The investigation was, in fact, anticipated to take several months, in part because contacting witnesses would have required tracking down 80 homeless people.

Nebraska Revised Statutes, regarding bribery, read:

"Any person who accepts or receives any valuable thing as a consideration for his or her vote for any person to be voted for at any election shall be guilty of a Class II misdemeanor. Any person who, by bribery, attempts to influence any voter of this state in voting, uses any threat to procure any voter to vote contrary to the inclination of such voter, or deters any voter from voting shall be guilty of a Class II misdemeanor."

Regarding electioneering:

"No person shall do any electioneering, circulate petitions or perform any action that involves solicitation within any polling place or any building designated for voters to cast ballots by the election commissioner or county clerk pursuant to the Election Act while the polling place or building is set up for voters to cast ballots or within 200 feet of any such polling place or building. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class V misdemeanor."

Staffing change

David Dover took over Forward Omaha and Marlon Freeman came on board to head the voter transportation program, focusing on continuing to drive voters to polls while avoiding a repeat of the early voting problems.

Donors for and against

During the petition circulation time, supporters of the recall kept the identity of donors private. A state law that allows recall organizers to decline to identify donors until a date for a recall election has been set. When donors were named after the court decision, supporters of the recall were found to have come from Omaha's business community, particularly the restaurant and hotel sectors, which were set to be affected by Suttle's proposed budget Small donors, who did not give enough to be bound to provide a name, accounted for around $2,000, as well.

Forward Omaha was specifically created to oppose Suttle's recall. The bulk of the group's funding came from Suttle's campaign, in the form of advertising and consulting services. Forward Omaha saw most of its fundraising, which included $70,000 in cash, come in after September 2010, when the recall petition began to pick up steam. What cash outlays have been made went to mailing and, as supporters attempted to keep the petition from gaining enough certified signatures to trigger an election, professional handwriting analysis.

From December 1 – 21, 2010, the group reported $60,000 cash on hand. By comparison, Suttle, working on his own campaign, brought in $250,000 in the same span.

Once Nabity's 'Citizens for Omaha's Future split from the 'Mayor Suttle Recall Committee' at the end of 2010, the latter reported no donations for the December 22, 2010 - January 18, 2011 span.

In the first few days after he was confronted with allegations of having paid for votes, combined donations to 'Forward Omaha', the recall committee supporting Suttle, and to Suttle's personal campaign, were $22,000.

After news of driving voters to polls and paying them broke, eight major donors gave $80,000 in three days to recall efforts. One donor, MECA chair David Sokol, donated $50,000.

In support of retaining Suttle, philanthropist Dick Holland also gave $50,000. Forward Omaha, the pro-Suttle group, reported $79,000 since January 10, 2011.

Going into election day, January 25, 2011, those supporting the recall had raised more money than those opposing the recall. Citizens for Omaha's Future reported $40,050 and the Committee to Recall Mayor Jim Suttle raised $307,227,63, for a total of $347,277.63. On the other side, Forward Omaha reported $242,133.69 and Dick Holland's Committee to Keep Omaha Moving Forward brought in $39,350.00, for a total of $281,483.69 and giving a 23% lead in fundraising to recall supporters.

History

Nebraskans have removed a mayor from office before. In 1987, Omaha voters rejected Mike Boyle, whose mayoral tenure was marked by feuding with city police and reports of erratic behavior.

Jim Cleary, spokesman for and a key figure in the Boyle recall, joined the Suttle recall efforts in late August 2010.

Process

The recall election itself is a simple majority contest.

If the recall election fails, the sitting mayor may not be recalled again for one year.

In the event of a successful recall, a new mayor is elected within 90 to 150 days, a timespan that would fall sometime between April 24, 2011 and June 23, 2011. The winning candidate would need a simple majority to avoid a runoff. That runoff would itself take place 21 to 45 days after the intial balloting.

A replacement for Suttle would have taken office by July 2011 and complete Suttle's term, which ended in 2013.

See also

• Mayoral recalls
• Political recall efforts
• Political recall efforts, 2011
• Political recall efforts, 2010

Additional reading

• Affidavit filed for Suttle recall

Footnotes

Political recall elections

Recalls
by year

Upcoming recalls • 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • Historical recalls • Recall statistics and analysis

Recalls
by office

Governors • State legislators • County officials • County commission • Sheriffs • Mayors • City officials • City council • School board • Special district

Recalls
by state

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • District of Columbia • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Recall
laws

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Kansas • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Rhode Island • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming • States that require grounds for recalls • States that have pre-petition signature requirements for recalls