Why Minnesota's recall law spells likely doom for ouster efforts against House members

Yahoo

13-02-2025

The GOP is currently banking on the idea that the Democratic legislators' failure to attend the opening sessions in order to deprive the body of quorum will be enough to get the recall approved by the Supreme Court. Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer.
Thanks to an odd confluence of events — a tied Minnesota chamber and a member forced to step down — Minnesota's House had an eventful start to the new term.
After Republicans were initially stymied in their effort to elect their choice as speaker, the GOP decided to take their claim to the voters — announcing the launch of recalls against all House Democrats, with the hope of gaining the one seat needed to fully flip control.
This seems like a bold move. But in reality, there is a high likelihood of failure. In another state it may work, but thanks to the particulars of Minnesota's recall law, there is precious little chance that any of these recalls will make the ballot.
Minnesota would not be the first state to launch a recall over control of the legislature. This occurred in 1981 in Washington state, when a state senator flipped parties and the control over the chamber; twice in Michigan's Senate in 1983; twice in California in 1995, when two Republican assemblymembers voted against the party's nominee for speaker; and, in 2011 and 2012 in Wisconsin, when 13 state senators faced recall votes. The Washington state senator survived, but the two Democrats in Michigan and two Republicans in California were ousted. Four of the 13 officials in Wisconsin lost their seats, though it was only at the tail of the session that the Republican Senate leader was removed, and only for the lame duck session.
Recalls against state officials are rare — there have been only 49 state level recalls, and 40 of them were against legislators, in US history since Oregon became the first state to adopt such a law in 1908. But it is almost impossible in a state like Minnesota. The division in the recall laws shows why it very likely will not happen.
Twenty states allow the recall for some or all state level officials. Of those, 11 have a 'political recall' law, whereby voters can kick out elected officials for pretty much any reason. We've seen these types of recall efforts occur repeatedly over policy or political issues — such as California's Governors Gray Davis in 2003 and Gavin Newsom in 2021 or Wisconsin's Scott Walker in 2012.
Minnesota is one of seven states that have what can be called a 'malfeasance standard' or 'judicial recall' law. These laws limit recall efforts to a list of statutory reasons, usually a crime or malfeasance, nonfeasance or demonstrated incompetence. The other two states, Illinois and Virginia, have other limitations as well.
The recalls that take place throughout the country are overwhelmingly in the political recall category. Only one of the state-level recalls in U.S. history occurred in a malfeasance standard state. That sole recall was the party-flipping one in Washington in 1981, but it took place during a brief period when the Washington Supreme Court loosened recall rules.
This disparity in recalls between the two types of laws occurs on the local level as well (where many additional states — as many as 41 — allow recalls).
Minnesota itself is the prime example. The state overwhelmingly adopted its recall law in 1996, with 88% of voters in favor. But since then, there have only been two recalls that have gone to the ballot, against Tracy Councilmember Tony Peterson in 2018 and Two Harbors Mayor Chris Swanson in 2022. Only Swanson was removed, over claims of conflict of interest in supporting an underwater hotel. Additionally, two officials resigned in the face of recall efforts: Red Wing Mayor Dennis Egan in 2013 and Robbinsdale Councilmember Tony Kline in 2022.
Minnesota has fewer recalls than other malfeasance standard states, such as Washington, because of an important timing distinction: In Minnesota, judges rule on whether a recall may go forward only after the signatures are handed in. In Washington, the judiciary decision comes even the signatures are even collected. The result is that in Minnesota, petitioners better have a good hope that they will succeed in the courts to expend the money to get the recall going.
Perhaps the best example for the failure took place last year, when Columbia Heights Councilmember KT Jacobs faced a recall effort after being accused of making a derogatory call to a council candidate and then being untruthful in an investigation. Jacobs was censured by the council and petitioners turned in over 2000 signatures, at least 1880 of which were valid, more than enough to get the recall on the ballot. The Supreme Court cancelled the vote four days before it was to occur, ruling it didn't meet the strict standards for a Minnesota recall. The court has a three part test, which requires that the conduct 'affects the performance of official duties'; 'directly affect(s) the rights and interests of the public'; and, finally, that the conduct be 'the performance of an act by an officer in [their] official capacity that is wholly illegal and wrongful.' None of Jacobs' actions met the standard, in the view of the court.
The GOP is currently banking on the idea that the Democratic legislators' failure to attend the opening sessions in order to deprive the body of quorum will be enough to get the recall approved by the Supreme Court under this standard. But the very strict rulings by the court in the past make this an unlikely proposition — one that could be quite expensive, as the court will not rule until the signatures are validated. The other hope may be that the GOP plan on using this as a political talking point for 2026 elections, and the recall efforts keep the story alive.
Minnesota Republicans are not wrong to think that recalls could help.
Historically, recalls are very successful — nationwide, over 63% of recall votes since 2011 have resulted in removal and another 6% of officials have resigned in the face of a recall in that time. But due to the strictures of Minnesota law, it seems unlikely that voters will weigh in here, no matter how many signatures are handed in.