Thanks, Shannon. The site looks like a good spot to get some context on this question of what level of petition signatures is appropriate.

The page "Recall of State Officials" is dated 2006, so I don't know how much of the info remains current. At that time, though, it appears that 18 states allowed recall of state officials. Tennessee is not listed among them as of that date but would be listed now. Virginia is not listed either, because their recall process is by trial, not by ballot, the site says.

It also says 29 local jurisdictions allow recall, but acknowledges that some sources cite 36 local jurisdictions allow it. I would expect that number to have risen in the last three years, as well?

See:
(link...)

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times - the signature threshold was set as high as it was because there aren't many other ways to help keep the recall mechanism from being turned into a factionalist political weapon.

TCA 2-5-151 controls the local recall process except for the number of signatures and the timeframe in which they can be gathered. There are no other misuse safeguards in 2-5-151 other than a high signature threshold, so I'm not sure if additional safeguards to compensate for a lower signature threshold can be installed in the local amendment and not run afoul of the controlling state legislation. That definitely needs to be investigated first, in my opinion, if there's going to be a "reinvent the wheel" approach to all of this.

Many states have lower thresholds, but also have additional safeguards to keep the process from being misused politically. For example, Minnesota's calls for 25% of the number of votes cast for the office in question, but also involves the Chief Justice of their state Supreme Court - the CJ has to approve the petition. It also has strict rules governing grounds for recall, which are not present in either our local provision or in the state's version.

Also, Rhode Island requires 15% of the number of votes cast for the office being recalled, but severely limits who can be targeted AND requires a recall petition to be endorsed by 3% of the number of votes cast for said office before the petition can even be circulated - a "pre-petition petition", if you will.

By keeping the signature threshold at a significant, but achievable target, the need for additional safeguards is lessened and the amendment itself doesn't get any more convoluted than it's already been made out to be (or "is", depending on viewpoint).

Advocate lowering the threshold if you like, but please - at least address the concern of a potential increase in the likelihood of abuse of the process while you're doing so. Don't neglect the forest in favor of a narrow focus on one or two trees.

arbitrarily keeping the threshold high is ridiculous and pointless....adding a condition would accomodate any issues of abuse like other areas have.

it is the people who should chose, not some arrogant arbitrator who decides we don't know how or have the right and therefore it should be in the 'best interest'...that is the politician's argument and not that of the people.

the vote is the deciding factor and without a special election, adds no significant cost to the process....in fact counting over fourty k instead of under twenty k signatures in the county IS a savings.

and again, that does not mean the recall would pass.

it is a lame argument to ridicule statistics without proof.

It appears woefully out of date and/or just plain wrong in some cases.

For example, under Tennessee's heading, it states only school board members and city council members can be recalled, cites the wrong statute, states there is no time limit for gathering signatures and that the number required is "66% of the total vote cast for the candidate receiving the highest number of votes at the last election".

Where are you finding this, Brian?

At the link I shared, I don't see Tennessee listed at all (per my comment earlier)?

It does not appear that statistics appear to indicate the recall vote has been abused and the argument to increase the threshold appears to be political in nature, actually protecting the politician who is inclined to fall into categories that warrant a recall in the first place.

Even with a lower threshold, it is unlikely the recall can or would be abused.

The threat seems to be all talk and the reality is being reasonable and applying criteria norms used in other communities would be cheaper and better serve the community.

To have an unatainable standard is not necessary when the subject of recall is put on the ballot for the voter to decide in a regular election once the special election condition is removed from the amendment.

of course, Lambert does disagree, but then this is not surprising. It is probably a good reason to support modification of the high threshold we currently along with the expensive process. Keeping it too high keeps the people from having a say but does little to defer the deep pockets from abusing the system.

with the lowering of the threshold it will make this attainable in our particular community in response to gross neglegance and communities like ours, but not something that can be abused, any more than the vote itself can be compromised.

it was my understanding, when supporting the recall in 2007, that the intent was to lower the threshold from the state level. In areas like highly urbanized LA or SF, I could see upping the count due to one's ability one has to stand on any corner and collect thousands of signatures. Knoxville is not populated in that way. Going door to door is a formidable task and not one local voters can easily accomplish without major funding from private resources.

when originally participating in the 2007 recall amendment, I had understood that was the objective and don't recall these meetings to discuss anything being held with exception of those at Shoney's with two or three people in attendance.

granted I was hospitalized the last month of the process, but don't have these large numbers of people involved in my recall roster either.

It almost seems like it was better to leave the recall as established at the state level if this was not the objective to lower the threshold except for the fact local school boards and districts can now be subject to recall.....the reason this is up for review is simply the one thing added to the recall amendment was requrement for special elections.....something the commission is reviewing to remove due to the extrodinary cost and timing to accomplish this. It is perplexing that this was put there in the first place without review of others involved and I am hearing from past posts this was not discussed in meetings with any group. Perhaps someone will correct me if I am wrong.

IMO it is important to make the process clear so we know what is the norm and why, so we can participate in the commission approved document and don't have it just slipped through wthout input.

the 2008 vote made it clear that the people wanted a recall, but there was no educational outreach to share what the recall amendment consisted of and why.

on the recall issue I don't recall there ever being a meeting to discuss the content with public input....lisa, chuck, tamara, please correct me and show where this was the case if I am incorrect.

A couple of lunches with one or two attendants were held at Shoney's, with supporters were held, the same people included on the original eleven or so supporters, but no overall discussion and exchange with the public was ever held as I recall and only emails exchanged with these people and Paone.

How do I know? I had the list and provided it to Paone because he calimed to have misplaced it more than once.....it is a small list.

Had this gone to the petition process there is no way it would have gotten to base one with no public participation except for the 'recall' name on the petition. People proved they wanted a 'recall' amendment but NOT a high threshold for one. that was never discussed in public forums to the best of my knowledge so how would the public have known there was even a choice of the threshold? Or what other areas could be addressed or found acceptable to be included such as conditions of office which would allow the process to go forward?

I feel strongly the public needs to participate with the recall process and decide if they want the threshold or decreased. The Phillips and Lockett recalls will not have anything to do with this and there is no indication the process will succeed in the first place.

We don't need to just listen to scare tactics from Lambert claiming the deep pockets will take over.....what is the purpose of the recall? It is not a petition we are discussing, but a recall and those being put on the ballot for recall are not being removed from office, but being put on the ballot to decide if they should be removed. Lowering the threshold for putting it on the ballot would be less costly, not more so long as the special election stipulation is removed.

1.Signatures required to hold a recall election

25% of the voters in the last REGULARY scheduled
election for the office that is being recalled.

2 examples:

To recall the law director it would be 25%
of the vote for that office in the 2008 county
general election.

34,404 votes cast x .25=6,601.

Therefore,6,601 signatures needed to place
a recall on the ballot for the office of
law director.

To recall a member of the school board in the
8th district it would be 25% of the vote for that
office in the 2008 county general election.

3,819 votes cast x .25=954.

Therefore,954 signatures needed to place a recall
on the ballot for the office of school board 8th district.

The tricky wicket of off year county recall.

In the years that there are regularly scheduled
county elections..pretty easy.

One has 3 bites at the apple to hold a
recall election with no additional cost.

County primary,county & state general.
All held county wide.

However,in the off county election years
a recall election,as we now know it,is
expensive.

Why not put in the recall charter amendment
that in off county election years..the recall
election would utilize some form of convience
voting?

Then,as I've advocated in earlier posts,if the
recall is sucessful declare the office vacant
& follow the charter per vacancies.

I believe constructing a recall amendment
utilizing both the charter's requirements
per a vacancy & in the off years for county
elections requiring some form of convience voting
in the recall election would get us over the top
on the costes.

Plus,by utilizing some form of convience voting
in the off years for county elections it would satisfy
those that are perplexed as to how we recall an office
holder in the off years.

Bill Lockett received 34,404 Knox County votes for Law Director in the August 7, 2008 county general election:
(link...)

Phil Bredesen received 87,521 Knox County votes for Governor in the November 7, 2006 state general election:
(link...)

There are approximately 265,000 registered voters in Knox County (I think).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

California requires petition signatures equal to 10% of registered voters in the jurisdiction served by the citywide local official (California Election Code, Section 11221): (link...)

If California's state law applied here, it would take approximately 26,500 signatures (265,000 X 10%) to place on the ballot a question to recall Bill Lockett, NOT 40,000.

Washington requires petition signatures equal to 25% of the votes cast in the last election for a given local office to recall that local officeholder (Revised Code of Washington, 29A.56.180): (link...)

If Washington's state law applied here, it would take 8,601 signatures (34,404 x 25%) to place on the ballot a question to recall Bill Lockett, NOT 40,000.

Wisconsin requires petition signatures equal to 25% of the votes cast in the last election for governor to recall a local officeholder (Wisconsin State Code 9.10): (link...)

If Wisconsin's state law applied here, it would take 21,880 signatures (87,521 x 25%) to place on the ballot a question to recall Bill Lockett, NOT 40,000.

I believe a petition drive should need the following to put the recall on the ballot.
County District race: 51% of the total votes cast for the position in which the elected official holds.
Bill Phillips received a total of 3819 votes and was elected to office August 7, 2008. So we would need 1911 signatures on a recall petition to put it on the ballot under my suggestion.

In making comparisons between our Knox County Charter instruction for recall and the local recall laws adopted by other states, I've been trying to link directly to those states' statutes. I'm finding states' codes easily enough, but it's been difficult to locate their recall instruction within the codes...

The National Conference of State Legislatures, linked at the start of this thread, indicates that there are 19 states (including Tennessee) that allow recall of their state officials. I don't know whether just these 19 states allow recall of their local officials, or if maybe more states than that allow local recall.

In any event, Commissioner Richard Briggs has outlined on the Commission Forum the local recall guidelines of just these 19 states (excepting Tennessee):

(link...)

Using his reporting to commissioners rather than any more hard-to-glean statues (and skipping TN, CA, WA, and WI, detailed above), here are the formulas of the other 15 states for determining how many petition signatures will result in a recall ballot question AND how many petition signatures would be required in our local Bill Lockett recall effort, if that state's forumula were applicable here.

Alaska:
25% of votes last cast for the official being recalled
(34,404 votes for law director x 25% = 8,601 sigs)

Arizona:
25% of votes last cast for the official being recalled
(34,404 x 25 = 8,601 sigs)

Colorado:
25% of votes last cast for the official being recalled
(34,404 x 25% = 8,601 sigs)

Georgia:
15% of eligible voters at time of last election
(265,000 registered voters x 15% = 39,750 sigs)

Idaho:
20% of eligible voters at time of last election
(265,000 X 20% = 53,000 sigs)

Kansas:
40% of votes last cast for the official being recalled
(34,404 x 40% = 13,761 sigs)

Louisiana:
33.3% of eligible voters at time of last election
(265,000 x 33% = 88,245 sigs)

Michigan:
25% of votes last cast for the official being recalled
(34,404 x 25% = 8,601 sigs)

Minnesota:
25% of votes last cast for the official being recalled
(34,404 x 25% = 8,601 sigs)

Montana:
10% of eligible voters at time of last election
(265,000 x 10% = 26,500 sigs)

Nevada:
25% of votes last cast for the official being recalled
(34,404 x 25% = 8,601 sigs)

New Jersey:
25% of registered voters in the district of the official being recalled
(265,000 x 25% = 66,250 sigs)

North Dakota:
25% of votes last cast for the official being recalled
(34,404 x 25% - 8,601 sigs)

Oregon:
15% of total votes cast in last election for governor
(87,521 votes for governor x 15% = 13,128 sigs)

Rhode Island:
15% of votes last cast for the official being recalled
(34,404 x 15% = 5,160 sigs)

Summary:

Among 18 other states, only 3 states call for more recall petition sigs than does TN.

Among 18 other states, only 1 state calls for the same volume of recall petition sigs as does TN.

Among 18 other states, 14 states call for fewer recall petition sigs than does TN.

Among 18 other states, 8 states call for 1/4 as few recall petition sigs as does TN.

State law requries a recall election to be held
with a GENERAL election.

Therefore,I was wrong,can not hold a recall election
during the county primary.

Only during the state or county GENERAL election.

Of course the state law could be changed.

And in my opinion, gathering any % of registered voters isn't a good place to start as the voter files are only purged every 6 years. We have found countless examples of residents with multiple voters that have moved on.