One of these things is not like the other...

I was recently asked to comment on the seven charter questions we will be voting on August 8th. Being the kind of guy that likes to drill down to the details, I discovered an unusual difference between the ballot language and the actual ordinance regarding recall petitions. I know, I know. What kind of geek actually checks the ballot language against the ordinance? Guilty as charged. Bear with me; this is probably boring to anyone but us detail junkies. The ballot language reads: "Should the Charter of Kansas City be amended by requiring a committee of petitioners seeking the recall of the Mayor or a Council member to state a reason for the recall that must relate to malfeasance, misfeasance or misconduct, and by conducting a single election at which a person would be chosen to serve the remainder of the term of the official subject to the recall petition; and permitting the official subject to the recall petition to also be a candidate to continue in office?" So far so good. I agree that you should have to state why you want to recall an elected official on the petition. Makes sense to me. As far as the legalese, "malfeasance" is just a fancy word for "you did something wrong on purpose." "Misfeasance" means "you did something wrong by accident" and I think we all understand "misconduct." I won't rant on wording ballot language in such a way that a non-lawyer needs Black's Legal Dictionary to interpret it. The ordinance language reads: "Calling for submission to the voters of Kansas City, at a special election to be held on August 8, 2006, a question amending the Charter of Kansas City to require a committee of petitioners seeking the recall of the Mayor or a Council member to identify the actions or failure to act on the part of the official, which must be related to the official's duties, which forms the basis of the recall and requiring placement of the grounds before the voters; eliminating the question of recall and providing for a single election at which the official and any other qualified candidate may seek to serve the remainder of the term of office of the official subject to the recall petition; directing the City Clerk to notify the responsible election authorities of the election on or after May 26, 2006, but not later than May 30, 2006; and recognizing this ordinance to be an emergency measure." Here's where I get nervous. The ballot language mentions nothing about “related to the official's duties.” I think any recall should be related to the official's duties but who makes that determination? Is it up to the Board of Elections who certifies the petition? Doubtful. Maybe the City Council who is responsible for drafting an ordinance directing the City Clerk to put it on the ballot? Once again, doubtful. I'm guessing it would have to go before a municipal judge. This is one more layer of politics that I'm sure would involve lots of legal maneuvering. The lawyers for the elected official would argue for outright dismissal, then an injunction, and then possibly an appeal. To make a long story longer, I find too many differences to be comfortable with this proposition. But that's just me. However you vote, make sure you vote. You may want to bring a lawyer with you though...