(a) The qualified electors of the state, of any county, city, village, or town, of any congressional, legislative, judicial, town sanitary, or school district, or of any prosecutorial unit may petition for the recall of any incumbent elective official by filing a petition with the same official or agency with whom nomination papers or declarations of candidacy for the office are filed demanding the recall of the officeholder.(Excerpted by ThinkProgress)
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), a petition for recall of an officer shall be signed by electors equal to at least 25% of the vote cast for the office of governor at the last election within the same district or territory as that of the officeholder being recalled. . . .
(s) No petition for recall of an officer may be offered for filing prior to the expiration of one year after commencement of the term of office for which the officer is elected.
The Swing State Project went one step further, creating a table of all WI state senators who could be recalled if constituents collected just north of 15,000 signatures in their districts. As usual, a fairly thoughtful exercise from SSP. The table includes each vulnerable senator's win margin in 2008. SSP goes on to highlight Dan Kapanke, the state senator who challenged incumbent US House Rep Ron Kind (WI-03) and lost in 2010. SSP notes that Kapanke only won his district in 2008 by 3%.
SSP concludes that Kapanke is perhaps the lowest hanging fruit for a recall effort, but there's a crucial data source that SSP has totally ignored: how Kapanke faired in his state senate district in 2010. While Kapanke had been an incumbent in 2008, it was only his first campaign as a sitting senator, and perhaps his campaign was not fully versed on using the resources of an incumbent. He also may have become more popular during his high profile campaign against Ron Kind. It's kind of hard to guess. On the other hand, the data is readily available:
It turns out that in the 2010 congressional race, Dan Kapanke lost his own state Senate district by almost 5,000 votes. Ron Kind was heavily targeted by third party expenditure ad campaigns, but even in 2010, a year in which Republicans turned out in record numbers for congressional elections, Kapanke lost the congressional vote in home turf. How bad was the loss in percentage terms? He trailed Kind 53-45. While SSP is heralding Kapanke's weakness due to his 3 point win in 2008, a strong year for Democrats in Wisconsin, the real news is Kapanke's drubbing in 2010 in the 32nd senate district in 2010, the strongest Republican year in a long time. It seems to me that any credible challenger could pick Kapanke off. It's just so hard to find credible challengers at the state legislature level.
Methodology note: My ward-by-ward WI-03 and WI state senate 32 overlapping wards worksheet is available if anybody wants to double check my work. I just got the list of WI state senate wards in 2008 and matched them with the WI-03 election results, eliminating all WI-03 wards not represented by Dan Kapanke. Since the wards weren't redistricted in between 2008 and 2010, this method should work unless there was an error (e.g. I deleted some wards). If you're less confident in my work than I am, go ahead and check- that's what I'm providing the link for.
kapanke has sold out hard working public and private sector people of his district. truth is teachers and rest of public worker made pension and health concessions. Out country is debt the wars of IrAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, OUT SOURCING JOB THAT WERE GOOD JOBS AT FEDERAL LEVEL AND STATE LEVEL BOTH PARTIES HAVE HAD POOR FISCAL MANAGMENT ALL OF WOMAN AND MEN OF THIS STATE HAVE TO BALANCE THEIR SPENDING ACOUNTS BUT DIVIDE IS SO GREAT IT KEEPS UP WHERE HEADED TOWARAD A REVOLUTION IN THIS COUNTRY AND WE THE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHT TO DISOLVE THIS GOVERNMENT AND EVEN THE STATE GOVERNMENT WE NEED ALL OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DEMOCRATS AND REPULICAN TO WORKTOGETHER FOR BEST INTEREST BECAUSE IF THEY DONT WE WONT HAVE A STATE OR A COUNTRY
ReplyDelete