State Rep. Karen Whitsett (D-Detroit) at a press conference announcing Democrats’ voting rights bill package, Nov. 3, 2021, at the Ingham County Courthouse | Laina G. Stebbins
Anger among Democrats at the actions of state Rep. Karen Whitsett (D-Detroit) is nothing new, but any discussion of recalling her from office appears to be a nonstarter because of 2012 changes to state law that make it virtually impossible to remove an incumbent from office in districts where only one political party is dominant.
Whitsett has long been a thorn in the side of legislative Democrats, beginning with her vote in 2020 as the lone Democrat to vote with all Republicans in seeking to cap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s executive powers aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19, to her refusal at voting with Democrats in 2023 to pass provisions that included eliminating the mandatory 24-hour waiting period before getting an abortion and allowing Medicaid to cover the cost of an abortion. Because House Democrats only had a slim 56-54 majority, those provisions had to be left out of the legislation eventually signed by Whitmer.
Most recently, Whitsett’s refusal to attend the final days of the House’s lame duck session, when combined with Republicans’ walking out of the chamber, deprived Democratic leaders with a quorum and forced a frustrating end of session with several legislative priorities left unpassed.
So when Whitsett announced last week that she would not caucus with Democrats in the new House session with the GOP back in charge, it only added to calls for recalling Whitsett from office.
However, that is very much easier said than actually done, according to Democratic political consultant Mike Radtke, who is also a Sterling Heights city councilman.
“It’s almost impossible to recall a person of your own party just because they are automatically the candidate going forward,” Radtke told the Michigan Advance. “There are people interested in this, but I keep telling them it’s almost impossible if they wanted to try to recall Karen as she would automatically have the choice of being first on the ballot.”
Radtke was referring to a specific piece of Michigan Election Law, MCL 168.970b, which states that “Unless the incumbent declines within 10 days after the filing of a recall petition, the incumbent shall be the nominee of that political party at the recall general election …”
In other words, any attempt to run a candidate against Whitsett would have to either be as a Republican or as an independent candidate, a situation highly unlikely to be successful in Whitsett’s 4th House District, which serves more than 90,000 residents in Northwest Detroit, the vast majority of whom are Democrats. In last November’s election, for example, Whitsett didn’t even have a Republican challenger and won with 98% of votes cast.
“There’s zero possibility,” Radtke said of the chances at pulling off a successful recall. “I actually met with two activists who really wanted to start a recall campaign and they were very unfamiliar with the law and I was explaining to them that we can’t get an independent, not in the city that has 80% straight-party ballot. How are you going to convince voters to vote for the Republican or an independent candidate against the one Democrat? It would require an astronomical multimedia campaign to explain why you’re doing this to voters who are checked out, who are not likely to vote in a recall.”
The Advance requested comment from Whitsett, but it was not returned.
The law providing incumbents with the ability to automatically appear as their party’s nominee in a recall election was just one part of a series of changes instituted by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2012 following the recall the year before of Rep. Paul Scott (R-Grand Blanc), who as chair of the House Education Committee was targeted by the Michigan Education Association for his championing of cuts in education funding and teacher tenure reform.
According to the Michigan Secretary of State, the process to get a recall election onto the ballot requires a series of steps, intricately timed, that give recall organizers a very short window with which to collect a very high bar of signatures.
Firstly, a recall petition cannot be initiated or circulated against an official during a “safe haven” period at the beginning and end of the office holder’s term, which is six months for a state representative. Within the year that is left open for a recall, petitioners must get the language approved by the Board of State Canvassers, a decision which can then be appealed by the official in question, with up to 50 days before a decision is required.
Only at that point can recall petition sheets be circulated, with the approved language only valid for 180 days, although the signatures themselves must be collected within the 60 days prior to being submitted for validation.
Meanwhile, the number of signatures needed to initiate a recall election is “25% of the number of votes cast for all gubernatorial candidates in the last gubernatorial election in the officeholder’s electoral district.”
“It doesn’t make any sense because it’s a very high bar,” said Radtke. “That number can become so astronomical, it’s more people that even vote in your race.”
Radtke says the 2012 changes were made with the definite intent of depriving voters the opportunity to recall elected officials if they feel they aren’t acting in their best interests.
“This was a law written by [former Gov.] Rick Snyder and his fellow Republicans to essentially end recalls,” he said, calling the situation with Whitsett “a national embarrassment.”
“She shouldn’t derive full-time money from not doing her job. If I didn’t show up for the people of the city of Sterling Heights, I would be out of a job. If I miss more than two consecutive meetings without an excuse or a doctor’s note, I would lose my job,” said Radtke.
“I think that the people across the state have a right to recall. It’s a right given to us. And if you’re in a strong partisan district, and there are a lot of strong partisan districts, you now have no access to the recall law, so you’re either hoping the governor removes somebody or you’ve got to wait them out of office,” said Radtke. “I think it gives her one less incentive to do the people’s business because she knows she’ll never get recalled.”
With a recall essentially off the table, there has been speculation whether House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri (D-Canton) could sanction Whitsett for her decision not to caucus with Democrats.
Puri’s spokesperson, Jess Travers, told the Advance they would not be commenting on the situation.
House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp.) was asked last week if he planned to step up and help Whitsett if Puri was to pull back services such as communications from her office as a result of her decision not to caucus.
“I think Leader Puri would make a big mistake if he was punishing his members. You know, I’ve served as minority leader. I understand the challenges, right? But I would encourage Leader Puri to continue to support all of his Democrat members with caucus services and and I haven’t given any thought to how I would handle it if that didn’t happen,” said Hall.
Radtke says Hall has take full advantage of the situation, much to the detriment of Whitsett’s constituents, noting that Hall has no intention of passing water affordability legislation that she has supported, which would greatly benefit residents of her district, while at the same time convincing her to crash and burn House Democrats’ lame duck plans..
“The sad thing is, I don’t think Karen Whitsett, who thinks Matt Hall is the bee’s knees, understands that he played her like a fiddle.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.