be avoided, even after a petition has been filed, by the resignation of the official against whom the petition is filed. In some States there is a time limit in which such resignation must be filed. Colorado and Arizona require the resignation to be presented within five days after the petition is filed. But in California a recall election can not be avoided by resignation. Under this plan, in case of resignation the office is filled as provided by law until the result of the recall election is ascertained.

Furthermore, an examination of the different systems shows that the nature of the recall election varies. A majority of the States make the election one for the purpose of selecting a successor to the incumbent, but in California and Colorado the electorate vote on both the proposition of recalling the incumbent and upon a successor to the incumbent. The Constitution of Washington, however, is not clear in regard to the nature of the election: it would seem that the electorate votes merely on the question of removal. When the recall is an election to select a successor to the incumbent usually the incumbent may be a candidate for reëlection along with other candidates who are properly nominated. In California and Colorado, however, there is no necessity for the incumbent to be a candidate as a direct vote is taken on the question of removal.

In all of the States which have completed the machinery of the recall the ballot not only contains the name of the candidates for the office, but also a printed statement of generally not over two hundred words setting forth the reasons for the removal and two hundred words giving the officer's justification of his course of conduct. Colorado and California allow the officer three hundred words for his justification. Usually at a recall election

the person having the largest number of votes - it may be the incumbent himself is elected and continues to serve the remainder of the term. In Colorado and California, however, the officer must be recalled by a majority vote and then the candidate receiving the highest number of votes is considered as elected to fill the vacancy created by the recall.

The States as a whole place certain limitations upon the use of the recall. Generally a recall petition can not be filed until the officer has been in office for at least six months with the exception of legislators who are subject to removal after from five to ten days of service in the first session of the legislature to which they are elected. There are also limitations upon the use of the recall after one unsuccessful attempt. In Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon the petitioners must pay the expense of the first recall election before they can file a second recall petition. In California a second petition can not be filed within six months and in Colorado the second petition must be signed by at least fifty percent of the voters.

An examination of all of the constitutional provisions in the eight States having the State-wide system shows that the California and Colorado systems are the most elaborate. The recall provisions are declared by the constitutions to be self-executory, although the people and the legislature are given authority to supplement the constitutional provisions. This is the case also in Oregon. But in the other five States the constitutions make it mandatory upon the legislature to pass additional legislation. The constitutions of Idaho and Michigan set forth none of the machinery of the recall, but leave most of the features to the discretion of the legislature.

COMPARISON OF THE IOWA RECALL WITH THE STATE-WIDE SYSTEMS

Although the Iowa recall is limited to elective officers in commission-governed cities, yet the plan is very similar to the State-wide systems above analyzed. Under the Des Moines Plan only elective officers namely, the commissioners are subject to this method of removal. In these commission-governed cities the recall petition must be signed by at least twenty-five percent of the electorate; but only those entitled to vote for a successor may sign the petition. The basis of the percentage is the total vote cast for all candidates for the office of mayor at the last preceding general municipal election. As in the most common form of the State-wide systems, the petition must demand an election of a successor to the incumbent and contain a general statement of the grounds for the removal. After the petition has been circulated it is filed with the city clerk. If the petition is found sufficient it is submitted within ten days to the council. The council then orders an election to be held in not less than thirty nor more than forty days after certification by the clerk. The Iowa law varies from the ordinary provisions of the State-wide systems examined in the preceding sections in that no provision is made for the avoidance of a recall election after a petition has been filed - that is, the statute says nothing about the resignation of the officer, or the effect of such resignation after a petition has been filed.

The second process in the machinery of the recall in Iowa as used in the commission-governed cities is also similar to that found in the State systems. The election is of the usual nature, namely, an election to select a successor to the incumbent; the officer himself becomes a candidate unless he otherwise requests; the person who

receives the highest number of votes finishes the unexpired term; and there is no provision for a statement of the cause of removal on the ballot or of the officer's justification. Moreover, there are no expressed limitations upon the use of the recall in Iowa.75

Thus it is apparent that the Iowa recall system compares favorably in its provisions with the more comprehensive State systems. No doubt there are plenty of grounds for improvement in the Iowa law, but should the State see fit to extend this novel plan of removal, the recall law of the commission-governed cities will furnish a good starting point as well as an example for constitutional amendment.

IV

SUGGESTIONS FOR A RECALL SYSTEM IN IOWA An examination of the more important features of the various recall systems of the United States, together with the recall provisions of the Iowa commission government law, suggests certain conclusions as to the provisions which should be incorporated in any plan for a Statewide application of the recall. If Iowa is to extend the method of removal which has been established for commission-governed cities to other officers of the State and thereby align this Commonwealth with the more progressive western States, the following essential features should be included:

First. The State-wide application of the recall should be made by constitutional amendment; and the provisions of the Constitution should be so cast as to include all officers, State and local, who it is deemed should be made subject to the recall.

Second. This method of removal should be limited to elective officials where the State provides a comprehensive system of summary removal. That is to say, if both the executive authority and the appointing authority are vested throughout the State and local governments with the power of summary removal irrespective of the tenure of office, then the recall is unnecessary for the removal of appointive officials as these officers can be reached in an effective manner through the elective officials. Indeed, it would seem that a comprehensive plan of summary re

28

433