Keep Voting for Freedom

Advertisement
Dr. Malcolm Cross

Last week I discussed some of the proposed changes to the Stephenville City Charter on which we’ll be voting in the upcoming general election.  I argued that the voters should reject Proposition 1, which would reduce the size of the council from 9 to 7, and Proposition 3, which would impose limits on the number of consecutive terms a mayor or city council member could serve.  I argued that the passage of each proposition would reduce the freedom of the voters:  Reducing the number of council members would reduce the voters’ choices, and reducing the number of consecutive terms would reduce the power of the voters to reward council members they thought were especially good with additional time.

This week I want to discuss Propositions 2, 4, and 14.  Of them, one is unnecessary at best and may also reduce voter freedom, one increases the freedom of voters to select their council members, and one may carry that freedom too far.

Proposition 2 would, if passed, increase the term of city council members, as well as the mayor, from 2 years to 3.  Supporters of Proposition 2 might argue that increasing the term length would give newly elected council members more time to earn more knowledge and experience before facing the voters again.  But how necessary, really, is a 3-year term?  It’s longer than the terms for state representatives and U. S. Congressmen, and extending the term length reduces the opportunity of the voters to vote on whom they want for city council.  Proposition 2 should be defeated.

On the other hand, Proposition 4 deserves everyone’s enthusiastic support.  If passed, it would require all vacancies on the council appearing in midterm to be filled by popular election.  Currently, the city charter allows the council itself to elect someone to fill the vacancy created by the death or resignation of a council member.  I always thought this option endangered democratic government since it would allow a clique on the council to fill the vacancy with someone it wanted, regardless of what the voters might otherwise want.  Fortunately, the city council never used this option to fill any of the five vacancies created on the city council during my service.  Rather, the council continued to function with 8 council members following each resignation until the vacancy was filled by the voters themselves in the next election, as it currently does now.  Our success proves that having the council appoint someone to fill a vacancy is unnecessary as well as undemocratic.  Proposition 4 should be passed to eliminate any possibility that future councils will undermine democracy by appointing council members themselves rather than letting the public elect them.

Proposition 14, if passed, has the potential to create the most controversy in the future.  It calls for the creation of recall elections to remove mayors and council members before the expiration of their terms, whether those terms be 2 years or 3.

I’ve been arguing that voters, to avoid diminishing their electoral freedom, should reject Propositions 1, 2, and 3, while supporting Proposition 4.  But Proposition 14 does not propose to diminish the voters’ freedom.  Rather, it proposes to create for them a new right not heretofore enjoyed in Stephenville.  And with that right there comes, or should come, new responsibilities for the voters to bear should they choose to grant themselves and then exercise this right.

Proposition 14 presents a problem:  It says voters may act to prematurely end the terms of their elected officials for reasons of “incompetency, misconduct, or malfeasance in office.” Now, nobody should have to tolerate anyone’s “incompetency, misconduct, or malfeasance in office,” but Proposition 14 neither defines these terms nor provides any means by which they can be defined.  Apparently, what constitutes “incompetency, misconduct, or malfeasance in office” is strictly in the eye of the beholder, and this leaves open the possibility that anyone with a grievance against any officeholder for any reason could launch a recall drive.  Highly motivated individuals or small groups could quickly plunge city politics into chaos with incessant recall drives against one or more city council members.

The author of Proposition 14 evidently anticipated this problem since the proposition contains some limits on the extent to which recalls can be conducted:  No recall campaign can be launched within the first three months or the last three months of an elected official’s term, and no elected official can be the target of more than two recall efforts per term.  Nonetheless, passage of Proportion 14 would create opportunities for mischief which currently do not exist.

Moreover, Proposition 14 seems unnecessary, at least most of the time.  I worked with over two dozen other mayors and council members as they came and went during my time on the council.  The men and women I worked with differed in their governing philosophies, their grasp of the issues, and their ability to work well with others.  Yet each was honest and devoted to the best interests of the people of Stephenville as he or she defined those interests.  None was guilty of “incompetency, misconduct, or malfeasance in office.”  None deserved to be a target of a special recall election.

Although Proposition 14 is at worst an invitation to chaos, and at best unnecessary, it should probably be passed:  Despite the absence of a need for recalls in the past, there is always the possibility that such a need might arise in the future.    But the recall should be treated as a fire extinguisher—a tool to be kept packed away and not to be used except under the most dire of circumstances.  The existence of the recall, should voters pass Proposition 14, will impose on them a special responsibility to scrutinize more carefully candidates for city council to minimize the possibility that someone with the potential for “incompetency, misconduct, or malfeasance in office” not be elected.  And, perhaps even more importantly, the voters should be vigilant to guard against the recall’s misuse by those who would seek to overturn the results of regular elections and sew chaos within our political system.  After all, the passage of Proposition 14 will increase the voters’ freedom, and, as has been said elsewhere, “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”

  


Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville and taught politics and government at Tarleton since 1987. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990 to the present).  He was Mayor Pro Tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014.  He is a member of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church and the Stephenville Rotary Club, and does volunteer work for the Boy Scouts of America. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.