Yesterday, the Illinois House passed an amendment to allow for the recall of elected officials. Those pushing the proposal -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- have couched it in pro-democratic, anti-corruption, good government terms. What's been lost in this rhetoric, however, is the fact that recalls are extremely expensive to initiate and, as such, they often only happen when the politically powerful throw their weight behind the process.

This begs a question: taking a long-term view, would a recall mechanism benefit Illinois progressives? Or would it just represent a shiny, new cudgel for the various factions in Springfield to use against reformers -- and each other -- whenever they see fit?

As Capitol Fax noted this morning, the Sun-Times editorial page came out in opposition to the recall measure, emphasizing the practical considerations (while also clearly stating that "this is not a defense of Blagojevich"):

In most recall cases, a governor would likely serve a year or two before a consensus started to emerge that he or she was a lemon. Then, the law would allow five months to collect signatures (more than 400,000 for a governor recall), and a few more months for signature challenges and campaigning.

Before you know it, the old governor's term would be three-quarters over, leaving a new governor with just one year to serve. What's would likely be foremost on the new governor's mind? Getting re-elected. And we all know how often leaders take bold action during election season.

In Blagojevich's case, a recall wouldn't be completed until well into 2009, just before the 2010 re-election campaign begins. Gridlock in Springfield is bad enough now. Just imagine how cooperative Blagojevich would be in the year building up to the recall vote.

In the interest of widening this debate a bit more, we've reprinted the floor statement delivered by Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) in opposition to the amendment. Currie argued that recall "raises the specter of a permanent election cycle":

Recall is seductive, and its rhetoric powerful. Let the people speak, hold politicians accountable 24/7, 365 days a year.

But its promise is deceptive and risks a properly functioning representative democracy.

Recalls don’t happen in a political vacuum. Voters across the state don’t wake up one morning and say let’s dump old so-and-so. No. Recalls happen when the losing political party takes to the warpath. Recalls happen when deep-pocket special interests and multimillionaires pay to collect the signatures. Darryl Issa, a wealthy and conservative California congressman, decided he’d like to be governor and preferred recall to the regular election. It cost him $1.5 million, but he put recall on the ballot.

Recall is explicitly about empowering the people who lost and the party that lost, the political minority. It’s a direct assault on our majoritarian system and raises the specter of a permanent election cycle. Recall gives the losers a second, a third, and a fourth bite at the apple. Where’s the sense in that?

Read the rest after the jump.

Recall encourages governance by public opinion poll. Don’t we already complain that our leaders lack backbone? Why would we want to make it even less likely that public officials will follow conscience and constitution? Why push them into an even greater dependence on the whims of a changeable majority? Well, you may say, recall doesn’t happen all that often. But the threat of recall is always there. Just ask the subjects of California recall efforts, Governors Ronald Reagan, Pat Brown, Pete Wilson and Jerry Brown.

Who gets recalled? I’ll tell you who: the official who ordered the municipal swimming pool desegregated; the lawmaker who stood up for minority rights, especially when that minority is feared or despised by the majority. Alexander Hamilton put it like this: “The recall will render the senator a slave to all the capricious humors among the people.”

Why is there a sudden and overwhelming need to end a term in the middle? The election cycles that are the subject of this recall amendment are short. We don’t enjoy life appointments. Not even the six-year term of a United States Senator. No. Our terms are for two years or four, not a moment longer.

And there’s a perfectly good mechanism under our constitution to send us packing if the circumstances warrant. It’s called impeachment. If we betray the public trust, if we’re derelict in our duties, we can—and should—be impeached. But you have to have evidence to impeach. You have to charge the lawmaker or executive with—something. This recall amendment requires nothing, no statement of fault, no list of improprieties. It’s enough to recall if you don’t like the way the our current constitutional framework is sound. Frequent elections guarantee accountability to the electorate. Impeachment gives us a means to oust officials who’ve crossed the line. And government by public opinion poll is not good enough for the people of this state. The right vote on HJRCA 28 is a no vote.