Provides for the recall power of the electors to remove an elective officer.
This constitutional amendment would add a new Article 20 to the New York Constitution to create a statewide recall process for elective officers. It defines recall as the power of citizens to remove an elected official and sets out the steps to begin a recall, including filing an intent with the State Board of Elections and stating a reason for recall. The bill specifies that the reason is not subject to review, and proponents would have 90 days to gather petitions.
The measure establishes high signature thresholds for triggering a recall election. For statewide officers, petitions would need signatures equal to at least 20% of the voters in the previous election for that office, with minimum county-based signature requirements across the state. For state senators and assembly members, the threshold would also be 20% of the prior vote total in the district. Judges would be exempt from recall. If sufficient petitions are certified, a recall election must be held between 70 and 90 days later, and a majority vote in favor would remove the officer. The bill also addresses succession and vacancy-filling rules for recalled officers, including special elections for legislative seats and temporary succession for certain statewide offices.
The bill would significantly alter New York election and constitutional law by creating a new direct-democracy mechanism for removing elected officials before the end of their terms. It would require the State Board of Elections to certify petitions and maintain a continuous count of signatures, and it would shift certain costs to the state general fund and, in some cases, deny reimbursement to an officer who survives a recall. It also bars a recalled officer from running in the special election to fill the vacancy and limits repeat recall efforts for six months.
Overall, the bill appears to be framed as a government accountability measure, with the caption emphasizing the electors’ power to remove an elective officer. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the text alone, the proposal is structured to make recall possible but difficult, suggesting an intent to balance voter oversight with procedural safeguards.
The main points of contention likely concern the policy and practical effects of recall elections: whether citizens should have the power to remove elected officials midterm, whether the 20% petition threshold is appropriately high or too burdensome, and whether excluding judges is justified. Other likely issues include the cost to the state and counties, the potential for frequent or politically motivated recall efforts, and the constitutional implications of changing the structure of New York’s elective offices.
If adopted, this amendment would add a new constitutional recall process in New York, requiring changes to election administration, petition certification, special election procedures, and vacancy-filling rules. It would affect statewide officers, state senators, and assembly members, while expressly excluding judges from recall. The State Board of Elections and county boards of elections would take on new responsibilities, and the state general fund would reimburse county election costs associated with recall and special elections.
No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from the available materials. The bill’s caption and structure suggest a pro-accountability, pro-recall policy goal, but the detailed thresholds and procedural limits indicate an effort to make recall available only under substantial public support. In that sense, the measure reads as reform-oriented but cautious rather than expansive.
Likely areas of contention include whether New York should adopt recall at all, since it would be a major constitutional change to the state’s representative system. Supporters would likely emphasize voter accountability and the ability to remove officials who lose public trust, while opponents may argue that recall could destabilize governance, invite partisan misuse, and impose significant election costs. The exclusion of judges, the 20% signature requirement, and the state’s obligation to fund recall-related election expenses are also likely to be debated.