Recall: removing an official before the term ends

A recall is a process that lets voters remove and replace an elected official before the official’s term ends. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) reports that 19 states and the District of Columbia permit recall of state officials. NCSL records two governors removed by recall: North Dakota’s Lynn Frazier in 1921 and California’s Gray Davis in 2003.

Definition

NCSL describes recall as a process that “allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the official’s term ends”.⁠¹ A recall usually begins with a petition signed by a set number of voters within a set period, followed by a recall election.

Recall differs from impeachment, in which a legislature removes an official for misconduct through a quasi-judicial process. Recall is a decision by voters, and most of the states NCSL lists require no specific grounds for it.

Origin and history

NCSL reports that North Dakota voters in 1921 “successfully recalled not only Gov. Lynn J. Frazier,” but also the attorney general and the agriculture commissioner, and that in 2003 “California voters successfully recalled Gov. Gray Davis”.⁠¹ Two later governors faced recall elections and kept office: in 2012, “Scott Walker survived a recall election” in Wisconsin, and in 2021, “Gavin Newsom survived a recall election” in California.⁠¹

Recall of local officials follows separate state and local rules. This page focuses on state-level rules, where NCSL’s figures apply.

How recall works and is assessed

Requirements vary widely:⁠¹

• Signatures. In Colorado, a petition needs signatures equal to “25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled,” collected within 60 days. Georgia requires 15% of registered voters for statewide officers, with distribution across congressional districts. Montana requires 10% of eligible voters at the last state general election for statewide officers.
• Grounds. NCSL lists eight states that require specific grounds for recall: Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington. It notes that Virginia’s process is not a recall election, and that Michigan’s 2012 law requires a stated, factual reason.⁠¹

Supporters argue recall keeps officials answerable between elections and offers a remedy when an official acts in ways voters did not expect. Critics argue it rewards organized, funded campaigns, can be used against officials for unpopular but lawful decisions, and costs jurisdictions money for special elections. Requiring specific grounds is one way states try to keep recall for misconduct rather than disagreement.

Hypothetical example. Suppose 200,000 votes were cast in the last election for a county office in a state using Colorado’s rule. Recall supporters would need valid signatures equal to 25% of that figure, 50,000, gathered within 60 days.⁠¹ A threshold tied to past votes for the office means a recall is harder to start where turnout was high, and easier where it was low.

Recall also sits inside a larger question that runs through this site: how voters can signal judgment between scheduled elections. A recall is the bluntest signal, removal. Other channels, such as public comment, consultations, or priority surveys, carry less force but also less cost and conflict. See Participation between elections.

Common confusions and neighboring terms

• Recall vs. impeachment. Impeachment is by the legislature, usually for misconduct; recall is by voters.
• Recall vs. referendum. A referendum decides a question of law; a recall decides whether an official stays in office.
• Recall vs. initiative. Both start with petitions, but an initiative proposes law.
• Recall vs. term limits. Term limits end service on a schedule; recall ends it early by a vote.

How My Vote Forward uses the term

My Vote Forward uses “recall” only for the legal process. The framework does not collect recall signatures, does not rate officials, and does not treat participant priorities or opinions as a judgment on any official. Its Representation chapter explains why it records representatives’ stated reasons alongside priority results instead of scoring them.

Unresolved questions

• Should recall require specific grounds, as eight states do, or remain a purely political judgment?
• Do recall threats make officials more responsive, or more cautious about necessary but unpopular decisions?
• How should replacement contests be designed so that a replacement does not win with a small plurality?