Frank White opponents could have enough signatures for recall vote — but there's a catch
If they are successful in forcing a countywide vote – and then prevail at the polls – White's nine-year tenure as the top elected official in county government could come to an end.
But while close to meeting the county charter's requirements to force an election, there's no assurance that they will get enough signatures on petitions to do so.
Asked whether he wanted to discuss the recall effort, the former Kansas City Royals second baseman turned Democratic politician declined the offer.
'Not really,' he said in a text message Thursday morning. 'I'll just continue to do the work.'
Organizers of the grassroots effort to unseat White announced this week that they had gathered and election officials had certified more than half of the 42,900 signatures necessary to put it on the ballot — and that they're continuing to circulate petitions.
Leaders of the volunteer effort are centered mostly in eastern Jackson County. They put out a schedule on Facebook saying when and where they would be collecting signatures this weekend in Independence, Lake Lotawana, Blue Springs and Lee's Summit.
And while their effort persists, White's opponents are hoping another significant chunk of signatures will count in their favor soon too, putting a recall election within reach.
A well-funded dark money group has gathered about 29,000 potentially additional names supporting a recall, 'if not more,' according to that group's spokesman.
But there's a catch.
Democracy in Action has not turned those signatures into the election boards for verification, and for now, they aren't able to.
The political consulting firm the group hired to gather those signatures is holding onto them until Democracy in Action pays them in full for that work.
'We definitely owe them,' Democracy in Action Executive Director Guy Howard said Thursday. 'We kind of went out there without having the funds, so we had some credit with them, and they did the work. And now they're just waiting to be paid.'
Should even half of those signatures be certified by election officials, it could be enough to force a recall election.
'There's still people out there working on collecting signatures, kind of the grassroots movement, because we don't know if Democracy in Action is going to come through and get those released or not,' said County Legislator Sean Smith, who has been a vocal supporter of the recall campaign.
The recall effort grew out of taxpayers' dissatisfaction with how White and county assessment director Gail McCann Beatty set values on real estate for property tax purposes during the biennial reassessment cycle in 2023.
Many homeowners saw big spikes in the taxable values of their homes then and blamed White for the tax increases that followed.
Recall organizers began circulating recall petitions at shopping centers, gun shops and community events that summer. Their efforts had largely stalled by mid-2024.
But consternation grew after White said he would oppose the rollback order that the State Tax Commission issued last August.
In its controversial order, the state commission required Jackson County to reduce the assessed values on three-fourths of the county's 300,000 real estate parcels because the commission said the county's 2023 reassessment process was flawed.
Taxpayers were not given proper notice of their rights to appeal those higher values in 2023, the state commission said, and ordered the county to retroactively cap most assessment increases from that year to 15%.
Signature-gathering events were organized through Facebook groups like Fight Jackson County Missouri Assessments and Recall Frank 7% White – a reference to the single-digit percentage increase on White's own home in 2023, when many others saw huge spikes.
As of this week, those volunteers had turned in about 23,000 valid signatures. They submitted another 6,000 unverified signatures on Wednesday, Smith said.
Many of the latter will likely be disqualified for a variety of reasons. Names of people who don't live in Jackson County don't count, for example.
And because the recall campaign has been going on so long, some people might have signed their names twice on separate occasions many months apart.
'We anticipate we're going to start encountering quite a few duplicates,' said Tammy Brown, the Republican co-director of the Jackson County Election Board. 'People are going to forget they signed it. They're going to think it's a new one. So we anticipate seeing some duplicate signatures, and the system tracks that, so only one signature will count.'
The county election board verifies the signatures of people who live outside of Kansas City. The Kansas City Election Board verifies those with Kansas City addresses.
If enough signatures are certified, a recall election must be held within 60 days of that certification, according to the county charter. Brown said it would be up to the county legislature to set that election date.
As it is an odd-numbered year, there are no regular election dates remaining on this year's election calendar in Missouri, which means a recall would need to be a special election.
A special election typically costs county and Kansas City taxpayers around $1 million, Brown said, but the cost could be lessened by reducing the number of polling sites and poll workers to staff what she thinks would be a low-turnout election.
It also might be cheaper if another taxing district wanted to add a vote for something else to the ballot, but so far none has set an election.
Were the recall petition drive left to volunteers alone, many more months might pass before the organic effort could reach the threshold needed to put White's removal up for a vote.
But Democracy in Action's involvement has potentially sped things up. As a nonprofit formed as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization under the tax code, the group does not have to reveal its donors and has not volunteered that information when asked.
But Missouri campaign finance laws do require Democracy in Action to reveal who it is paying to work on its behalf and for what purpose.
Between November and the end of January, the group spent $182,325, according to its campaign finance reports. All but $7,800 of that was paid to the Kansas City political consulting firm co/efficient.
And of that, $135,000 was spent on collecting signatures. 'Paid petitioners,' is all the reports say.
Howard would not say how much more Democracy in Action owes co/efficient for collecting signatures since its last payment on Jan. 24. His focus now is on raising enough money to pay the firm back.
'We believe we're done. We believe we have enough signatures,' he said.
Even recognizing that some signatures will be disqualified, 'we think we have enough to get us over the hump,' Howard said.
Should there be a recall vote, Democracy in Action won't be alone in needing to ramp up fundraising to bolster a campaign.
As of its April 11 campaign finance report, White's committee Citizens for Frank White Jr. had just $4,900 in the bank.
White was once a hometown hero. As a youngster, he helped build the Truman Sports Complex as a laborer.
He won a starting position on the Royals in the 1970s and went on to earn eight Gold Gloves and help the team win its first World Series title in 1985. He later was manager of the organization's minor league team in Wichita and announced Royals games on TV.
In 2014, he won a seat on the county legislature largely based on his reputation as a ballplayer. The legislature appointed him county executive in January 2016 after his predecessor resigned.
He won election that November to finish out Mike Sanders' term and was re-elected in 2018 and 2022.
But as early as 2019, some residents were growing dissatisfied with his insistence on setting property values for tax purposes as close as he could to their actual market values, which is the standard set by state law.
Even then, some called for his recall. Tempers flared again in the 2021 reassement cycle and boiled over two years later.
In addition to his differences with Smith and other legislators over the issues of property value reassessment, White and a majority of the legislature have been at odds over spending issues for the past two years.
His veto of the proposed 2025 budget has White and five legislators in a stalemate that has resulted in the legislature refusing to approve most spending measures since the first of the year.
On Wednesday, Smith, who is a Republican, and two Democratic legislators – Manny Abarca and Venessa Huskey – sent a letter to the state's Republican attorney general requesting an investigation.
Smith, Abarca and Huskey accused White of failing to work full time as the county's top administrator because during the baseball season he is a coach for the minor league Kansas City Monarchs.
But primarily, they want Andrew Bailey to look into White's recent actions with regard to the budget and his refusal to follow the State Tax Commission's order to roll back 2023 assessments.
White says the rollback order that the tax commission reissued this week is improper and, according to a judge, unenforceable.
White claims that the county has followed state law and done things by the book. He recently agreed to cap property reassessment increases for this current year at 15% because of uncertainty over how litigation over the tax commission order will turn out. But he did so reluctantly, saying the cap would be unfair to those whose values stayed flat or fell because the tax burden would shift on them.
In a prepared statement, he called the letter to Bailey 'a deeply disappointing attempt to mislead the public through false and politically motivated accusations.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Alligator Alcatraz Hunger Strike: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Detainees at the controversial immigration facility known as "Alligator Alcatraz" have reportedly been on a hunger strike for more than 10 days, protesting conditions at the center. Newsweek has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' office for comment via email on Saturday. Why It Matters There have been allegations of medical neglect, verbal abuse, and poor conditions inside the Everglades immigration facility, and human rights advocates have repeatedly raised concerns about the center. Alligator Alcatraz was quickly created and holds an estimated 1,000 beds. The bunkbeds are stacked together in wire-fenced cages. The remote facility is expected to cost Florida about $450 million annually to operate. The center is part of the Trump administration's effort to crackdown on illegal immigration. President Donald Trump has vowed to carry out the largest mass deportation in U.S. history, an initiative that has seen an intensification of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and arrests across the country, including people with valid visas and documentation. What To Know Several detainees at the relatively new facility are refusing food as part of a hunger strike to protest conditions inside the center, with reports noting the strike has entered its 11th day. Pedro Lorenzo Concepcion one of the detainees, was hospitalized during the strike, and told El Pais in a call from inside the facility, "I feel weak, with a lot of heartburn." He told the outlet that he has refused to eat since July 22. He continued: "I don't want food, I refuse any treatment. I didn't even ask to be taken to the hospital, because I'm fighting for my family and all Cubans, and I belong where my people are, in prison, suffering the same hardship they are." His wife, Daimarys Hernández, has told the outlet and NBC that she is afraid he may die in custody or be deported back to Cuba alone. Lorenzo Concepcion, who NBC identified as Pedro Hernández, came to the U.S. from Cuba nearly two decades ago, in 2006. He was detained on July 8 after showing up at an ICE appointment in Miramar, Florida. So far this year, there have been 10 confirmed deaths in ICE detention, per the agency. "These deaths are clearly attributable to the Trump administration's increased and aggressive detention policies, and I have no doubt that when more complete investigations take place, it will likely provide information that these deaths were likely preventable," Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) National Prison Project, told Newsweek in July. Democratic leaders and human rights activists have called out the center over reported conditions. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has repeatedly defended the center and has promoted the facility as a model for other states as a way to increase ICE detention capacity. "We need to double our capacity in detention beds because we need to facilitate getting people out of this country as fast as possible," Noem said in July during a press conference. ICE is struggling with limited capacity and resources to fulfill its mission of millions of deportations. President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and others, tour "Alligator Alcatraz," a new migrant detention facility at Dade-Collier Training and Transition facility, on July 1 in Ochopee, Florida. President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and others, tour "Alligator Alcatraz," a new migrant detention facility at Dade-Collier Training and Transition facility, on July 1 in Ochopee, Florida. AP Photo/Evan Vucci What People Are Saying Thomas Kennedy, a policy analyst and consultant at the Florida Immigration Coalition, wrote in an X post Saturday: "People detained at Alligator Alcatraz have had to remove fecal matter from the toilets with their bare hands because the toilets lose pressure due to lack of water. That's the sort of depraved conditions that drove those in detention there to ten days of hunger strike so far." Derrick Evans, former member of the West Virginia House and pardoned January 6, 2021 Capitol riot participant, wrote in an X post: "I'm glad the illegals at Alligator Alcatraz are on a hunger strike. Just saves the tax payers money by not having to feed them. I have no sympathy for any of them." Representative Maxwell Alejandro Frost, a Florida Democrat, wrote in an X post about the center on Saturday: "438 veterans in Florida are taking a stand against the unconstitutional and illegal use of our military for immigration enforcement. I stand with them. We should be defending our nation, not using Marines to cage people." Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said in a July 25 X post: "We stood up Alligator Alcatraz in just eight days as a centralized facility for deportation staging. The facility has a two-mile runway that allows federal military aircraft to transport illegal aliens out of the country, right on site. These deportation flights operated by DHS are underway, and we will support efforts to increase cadence of the flights so that the number of illegal aliens deported keeps increasing." What Happens Next? It remains unclear when the hunger strike will end. In late July, deportation flights from the facility began and are expected to continue. Civil rights groups, including the ACLU, have filed lawsuits alleging "inhuman conditions" and lack of legal counsel at the center.


Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
How top Democrats are already gearing up for 2028 online
List-building signals candidates' ambitions for higher office, particularly with online fundraising a key pillar of successful Democratic campaigns over the past decade. By purchasing or renting Democratic donors' contact information, candidates can more effectively target potential supporters, introduce themselves to a national audience and convert some of those donors into their own. 'You want to build up a strong email and text list for a few reasons — it'll increase your name ID, you can raise money for other candidates, and then raise money for yourself,' said Mike Nellis, a Democratic digital consultant. 'If you're not spending money on growing the biggest possible audience for yourself right now, then you're being foolish. Frankly, all of them could be spending more money on it.' Leadership PACs also allow political figures in blue states to steer money to competitive races, including by directly donating to vulnerable candidates or state parties, or by fundraising on their behalf. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, for example, has long tapped his extensive email and text lists to raise money for other candidates. Such efforts help blue-state Democrats build relationships across the country and engender goodwill within the party. 'Investing in your leadership PAC money now is critical because you have to build your fundraising operation now.' —Pete Giangreco, Democratic consultant The PACs also run ads aimed at recruiting online backers. Newsom's leadership PAC, Campaign for Democracy, invested another $1.5 million in digital ads in late June, according to its filing. The PAC, which launched in 2023 with a major transfer from Newsom's gubernatorial campaign, reported $4.4 million cash on hand at the end of June. Digital advertising helps candidates expand their name recognition and recruit donors outside their home states. 'It's the small donations from folks like you that have the greatest impact,' read one ad that Beshear's PAC, In This Together, ran on Facebook in June. 'Your support helps us do what matters most: elect decent, compassionate leaders in Kentucky and nationwide.' Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear ran digital ads this year that focused on his home state but also reached a national audience. | AP Beshear's group, which has $496,000 cash on hand, spent $30,000 on digital advertising through the end of June, according to its FEC report. While Beshear's PAC has run Facebook ads that predominantly target his home state of Kentucky , it has also reached an audience across the country, according to data from Meta's digital ad library. Similarly, Facebook ads from Whitmer's group, Fight Like Hell PAC, have predominantly targeted Michigan users — but with some national promotion, too. Hers has $2.6 million cash on hand.


Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
5 reasons Democrats are in good shape
The Democratic Party's approval rating is at its lowest point in at least 35 years, according to a Wall Street Journal poll released last week. In that survey, 63 percent of voters expressed an unfavorable view of the Democrats, while just 33 percent voiced a positive one. By contrast, voters disapproved of Congressional Republicans by only 11 points. These dismal figures are broadly consistent with other recent polling: In RealClearPolitics's average of recent surveys, voters disapprove of the Democratic Party by a 59.3 to 36.3 margin. What's more, Democrats don't just have a lower favorability rating than Republicans, but also command less trust on the public's top issues. In the Journal's poll, voters disapproved of Trump's management of the economy, tariffs, inflation, foreign policy, and immigrant deportations. And yet, they said that they trusted Republicans to handle all of those matters better than Democrats would. Of the 10 issues raised in the survey, voters favored Democrats on only two — health care and vaccine policy. These grim data points have spurred some handwringing in blue America. But just how dire is the Democrats' predicament? Is the party temporarily tainted with the stink of last year's defeat — and poised to rally back into power, just as it did after losing in 2004 and 2016? Or is the better precedent for the party's current position 1981, when the party began a 12-year struggle to escape the shadow of a failed presidency? Only prophets can answer such questions with certainty. In my own view, though, two things are true: • The Democrats' putrid approval numbers paint a misleadingly bleak picture of their current standing. • The party is in much worse shape than it was eight years ago, and will likely struggle to secure full control of the federal government any time soon. Below, I'll detail five reasons for believing that first point, and two for accepting the second one. This story was first featured in The Rebuild. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. Why Democrats might not be in disarray 1. Disaffected, but loyal, Democrats are driving down their party's approval rating In the Journal's poll, the GOP's net-favorability rating is 19 points higher than the Democratic Party's. And yet, in that same survey, voters say that they would prefer a Democratic Congress to a Republican one by a 3-point margin. This seems odd. Voters disapprove of Democrats by a much larger margin than they disapprove of Republicans. Yet a plurality nonetheless say they would vote for the former party over the latter one. As polling analysts G. Elliott Morris and Mary Radcliffe observe, there is only one explanation for this: Unhappy — but loyal — Democratic voters are driving down their party's favorability rating. This interpretation is consistent with polling from YouGov and The Economist, which finds that only 74 percent of Democratic voters approve of congressional Democrats, while 22.6 percent disapprove. By contrast, 88.9 percent of Republican voters approve of their party's congressional causes, while just 8.3 percent disapprove. Partisans often disapprove of their own parties when they suffer defeat. Republicans had abysmal approval numbers in 2009, yet stomped to a historic midterm victory the following year. And that turnaround was not an aberration: According to Morris and Radcliffe, historically, there is no correlation between how well a party performs in favorability polls taken this far from Election Day and how well they ultimately do at the ballot box. It's unlikely that the Democrats' plummeting popularity is entirely attributable to the disaffection of its own base. The GOP's trust advantage on various issues suggests a broader problem. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party is (almost certainly) in better shape than its approval rating would suggest. 2. Trump is more unpopular than Biden was at this point in his presidency The president's approval rating is among the best predictors of an opposition party's midterm success. And Donald Trump has rapidly squandered the American public's goodwill. When Trump came into office, voters approved of him by an 11.6 margin, according to Nate Silver's polling average. Now, they disapprove of the president by 8.8 points. For context, at this point in Joe Biden's presidency, the public still approved of the Democrat by more than 7 points. And although Trump's approval is unlikely to collapse to the extraordinary degree that Biden's did, there's reason for thinking it will follow the same trajectory. Namely: 3. Americans will likely feel the full impact of Trump's tariffs next year Thus far, the economic impacts of Trump's tariffs have been fairly modest. Those duties have pushed up consumer prices and likely slowed economic growth. But they haven't triggered inflation akin to that which America witnessed in 2022, let alone a stagflationary crisis. This is partly because Trump walked back his most radical tariff proposals. Yet the president's trade restrictions remain extraordinarily expansive, outstripping what many deemed the worst-case scenario during campaign season. According to Yale's Budget Lab, America's average effective tariff rate sits at 20.2 percent, its highest level since 1911. And Trump's current tariffs are poised to cost US households an average of $2,700 in annual income. Americans are not yet paying the full price of Trump's trade policy. The US government has yet to begin collecting tariffs on many foreign countries. And American retailers loaded up on foreign goods earlier this year to get ahead of the president's trade duties. But as America ramps up its tariff collection regime — and companies draw down their inventories — consumer prices will rise. Preston Caldwell, chief US economist for Morningstar, recently told Vox that he expects inflation to peak in 2026, when voters will be heading to the polls. 4. Democrats dominated the most recent high-profile, swing-state election Since Trump's conquest of the GOP in 2016, Democrats have gained ground with highly politically engaged voters, and lost support among less-engaged ones. This trade didn't work out very well in the high-turnout environment of 2024. But the fact that Democratic voters are now disproportionately 'reliable' — which is to say, disproportionately likely to cast a ballot in every election — may help them in the 2026 midterms, when overall turnout is sure to be lower. And the results of this year's Supreme Court election in Wisconsin lend credence to this view. That contest was the one 2025 race that 1) pit a Democrat against a Republican, 2) took place in a swing state, and 3) galvanized national attention. And the Democrat won 10 points, outperforming her standing in the polls. 5. Democrats' best issue is gaining salience, while their worst issue is losing it Finally, the American electorate's top concerns have been shifting, in ways that are potentially beneficial for Democrats. For years, Republicans have enjoyed an advantage over Democrats on immigration. And the Journal's poll shows that voters still trust the GOP to better manage illegal immigration by a margin of 17 points. But Americans are also much less worried about that issue than they were a year ago. In Gallup's polling, the share of voters who say they worry 'a great deal' about illegal immigration has fallen from 48 percent in 2024 to 40 percent this April. A more recent Gallup survey showed that the percentage of Americans who want immigration reduced has fallen from 55 percent last year to 30 percent today. Meanwhile, the share of Americans who worry 'a great deal' about health care — perennially, one of the Democratic Party's strongest issues — rose from 51 percent to 59 percent in April. And that was before the GOP enacted sweeping cuts to Medicaid funding. 1. Democrats are in much worse shape than they were in 2017. All this said, there's still reason to fear for the Democrats' future. For one thing, the party is much weaker than it was at this point in Trump's first term. Eight years ago, voters said they favored a Democratic Congress over a Republican one by roughly 8 points (compared to just 3 points today). Since 2018, the share of Americans who identify with the Democratic Party has also fallen sharply. Seven years ago, 50 percent of Americans said they supported (or leaned toward) the Democrats, while 42 percent said the same of Republicans, in Pew Research's polling. Today, 46 percent support the GOP while 45 percent back the Democrats. Opposition parties almost always gain House seats in midterm elections. And since the Republican House majority is small, Democrats are heavily favored to retake the chamber next year. But current polling suggests that the party's gains will be meager. And in 2028, for the first time in more than a decade, the Republican Party will not be led by Donald Trump. If the GOP retains its advantage on the economy — while shedding its exceptionally undisciplined and scandal-plagued standard-bearer — the party could become even more formidable. This is a very speculative concern, to be sure. But it's worth entertaining the possibility that Democrats' current position is more analogous to its predicament in 1981 — when Jimmy Carter's defeat was followed by 12 years of Republican presidential rule — than in 2017. The previous two times that Democrats lost control of the White House — in 2000 and 2016 — the party's outgoing president had been reasonably well-liked. Bill Clinton had earned a reputation for skillful economic management, thanks to the late 1990s economic expansion. Barack Obama was a singularly magnetic figure, and the US enjoyed relatively low unemployment and inflation in 2016. Both Clinton and Obama's successors won the popular vote in their respective elections, despite the fact that they each were conspicuously uncharismatic. Their losses could therefore be fairly easily dismissed as the consequence of easily reversible tactical errors. By contrast, presiding over post-COVID inflation rendered Biden historically unpopular while devastating the Democrats' credibility on economic management. 2. The party has long odds of winning the Senate anytime soon The Democrats' biggest political problem, however, lies in the Senate. The party's prospects for securing control of Congress's upper chamber — either next year, or in 2028 — look poor. Democrats need to gain four seats to win a Senate majority in 2026. Yet next year's map features no easy targets. The party's best pickup opportunity lies in Maine, a state that Kamala Harris won comfortably in 2024. But that state's incumbent Republican senator, Susan Collins, won reelection by 8.6 points in 2020, even as the national political environment leaned towards Democrats. Her defeat next year is far from assured. After defeating Collins, Democrats' next-best hope for growing their Senate caucus is winning the open seat in North Carolina, a state that backed Donald Trump all three times he was on the ballot, most recently by 3 points. If the party manages to beat Collins and win over the Tarheel State, they would still need to win races in Ohio and Iowa — or else, in places that are even more Republican — to eke out a bare majority in the Senate. Even winning control of the Senate by 2029 would require extraordinary electoral feats. The most plausible path here would involve Democrats beating Collins, winning a race in North Carolina, flipping a Wisconsin Senate seat in 2028, and taking back the presidency that same year (since the vice president breaks all ties in the Senate, Democrats would only need to flip three seats to boast a working majority in 2029, provided that they control the White House). And yet, this path only works if Democratic Senate incumbents also win reelection in every swing state race between now and 2029: Specifically, Democrats would need to win two races in Georgia, one in Pennsylvania, one in Michigan, and one in Arizona. This is conceivable. But it is not especially likely. The fundamental problem facing Democrats is that only 19 states voted for their party in each of the last three federal elections, while 25 US states backed Trump all three times. Put differently, the median US state is more right-wing than America as a whole. In practice, this means that — to win a Senate majority — Democrats don't merely need to beat Republicans nationally, but to do so by a hefty margin. For context, in 2018, Democrats won the House popular vote by 8.6 points and still lost Senate seats. In the US, midterms usually witness backlashes against the president's party. But Democrats need more than an ordinary midterm backlash to put themselves on pace to win the Senate by 2029. And without a Senate majority, Democrats that year would be unable to pass partisan legislation or appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, even if they did manage to win the presidency. Democrats might not need to become drastically more popular to win back the House. But to actually run the federal government, they likely need to make their party more broadly appealing than it was eight years ago. This makes their historically low approval rating more than a little alarming.