Hoyle, McLain, and Riley face recalls by gun activists (even though that's dumb)

Kari Chisholm

The fight to pass universal background checks in Oregon is getting a bit more high stakes.

Last week, gun activists filed recall petitions against Rep. Val Hoyle (D-Eugene), Rep. Susan McLain (D-Forest Grove), and Sen. Chuck Riley (D-Hillsboro). It's unclear why exactly these legislators were targeted, given the broad support among Democratic legislators for the legislation.

I'm guessing that the activists think that these recalls will have the same effect in Oregon as similar efforts did in Colorado -- throwing the legislature into turmoil as seats were flipping from D to R.

Of course, that betrays a woeful misunderstanding of recalls work in Oregon.

First, a sidenote: You might remember that in January, recall paperwork was submitted for Governor Kitzhaber. The petition was rejected because he had not been in office for six months. That six-month waiting period is true for all elected officials in Oregon, except legislators. Legislative recalls are allowed any time after the fifth day of the legislative session.

OK, here's how the process works:

• In order to successfully submit a recall petition, its sponsors need signatures totaling 15% of the votes for all candidates for Governor in that district. Figure roughly 25,000 in the House districts and 50,000 in the Senate district. They've got 90 days to get the signatures. CORRECTION: My math was wrong. The correct numbers are approximately 3200-3600 valid signatures in the House districts and 6000 in Sen. Riley's district. (Hat tip to Penny Okamoto at Ceasefire Oregon for helping me get it right.)

• Once a petition is successfully filed, the elected official has the option to resign. If he or she does not, then the voters will be sent ballots asking whether that official should be recalled. It's a yes or no question. Unlike some other states, there's no opponent on the ballot.

• If the recall vote is successful, then it's just a typical legislative vacancy. The local county party folks would nominate replacements, and the county commission(s) would pick the winner.

Here's the key: By law, a recalled Democrat must be replaced by another Democrat. Unlike Colorado, there is zero chance that any of these seats will change party control.

(In fact, my reading of state law suggests that that the party and the county commission could simply re-appoint the just-recalled elected official. That might be unlikely, particularly on the part of the county commission, since they'd be going against the "will of the voters", but it seems possible.)

So, while it might satisfy some activist primal urge to punish these legislators, it's unlikely that there would be any meaningful policy difference.

By Kari Chisholm April 21, 2015