Buckeye State Blog - Impeachment works, but the Plain Dealer lashes out at the Democrats rather than eat crow - Comments

Bingo. Recall is not available for statewide officials

BuckeyeNation — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:09:15 -0700

the idiots at the Pee-Dee only "recall" the Mayor Kucinich recall election in the late 70s. That was authorized by the Cleveland City Charter.

What else can you expect from a newspaper that thinks Brent Larkin and Bill Livingston are "journalists."

Every know a bill go through unedited?

modernesquire — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:34:30 -0700

It was a starting point. And like all legislation, would have been amended by the investigatory impeachment committee.

Recall election error.

TAmber1 — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:54:04 -0700

Modern, I advise you to read the Ohio State Bar Association webpage again. It states that state law does not provide for a recall election. This is correct. ORC 3.07-3.10, authorized by Article II, Section 38 of the Ohio Constitution, provides for citizens to force a judicial hearing on alleged wrongdoing by a state official. This is not a recall election. A recall election is a vote of the people to remove an official from office. The commenter on that other blog is getting things mixed up. ORC 3.07-3.10 does absolutely apply to statewide officials, read the plain language again.

Articles of Impeachment.

TAmber1 — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:49:22 -0700

My only issue with the Articles of Impeachment is that they were terribly written. Articles of Impeachment should plead, with specificity, the offenses charged (yes I know that the process is not judicial and thus there are no set standards, but the rules of the High Court of Impeachments are based off of criminal procedural rules and follow those same requirements). If you pull up any of the prior Articles from the impeachments of Justices Irwin, Tod, Pease, Smith, or Brown, they go on for literally pages and pages explaining in detail the offenses of the defendant. If those Articles had really gone before the entire House for a vote or the Senate for trial, they could have been very easily attacked by Dann's defense counsel, and while impeachment is a purely political process, it would have given him ammo in the trial. Thankfully we don't need to worry about that.

Disagree with your disagreement

top6 — Thu, 15 May 2008 09:18:57 -0700

I am aware that impeachment precedent is non-binding, but political precedent is important as well. (And it could have led to legal precedent if the case ended up in court.) There is, as you have observed, virtually no precedent for impeachment in Ohio. That is because it is an extraordinary, rare and undemocratic act.

Think about it; the last important impeachment precedent is from 1808 - 200 years ago. Is what Dann did really the worst thing that any impeachable official has done in Ohio in 200 years? I think the PD's position has more merit than you let on. If the next impeachment is 200 years from now, then even the articles against Dann will carry weight with Ohio Constitutional scholars.

On the other hand, the PD does not spell out its argument in any understandable way and if, as you say, a recall is illegal, then that is obviously not a fallback position. Also, to the extent we had or verged on an Ohio Constitutional crisis, the blame primarily lays on the shoulders of moron March Dann, who should have had some shame and resigned immediately.

Disagree (of course)

modernesquire — Thu, 15 May 2008 07:49:56 -0700

First, impeachment is a political act, so it's only bound by nonbinding historical precedent. There is no such thing as legal precedent in impeachment. Second, the PD's main attack against impeachment over recall was that impeachment was not effecient and would take too much time to get Dann removed over a recall process that requires over 600,000 signatures and then a trial. Fact is that impeachment took only a day once the process actually begun to get Dann out of office.

Don't like that articles of impeachment were introduced before (another) investigation was completed because that connotes a judgment? Well, what does signing a petition calling for the recall of a public official mean? Same thing.

And, of course, there's the tiny little issue that some people said that Ohio law doesn't allow for recall of statewide officials. The PD got that wrong, too.

Dann wasn't going to be removed just because he "pissed" off other officials. If that's all he did, then I doubt that the PD would have called for his immediate resignation, or applaud the legislative act which allowed for the IG to investigate Dann and his office.

Get a grip.

Recall/Impeachment

top6 — Thu, 15 May 2008 06:44:23 -0700

The fact that the articles of impeachment relied on the same standards as the recall does nothing to discredit an argument about the wisdom of impeachment. The Plain Dealer's (admittedly crude) argument is based on the constitutional and procedural concerns. And who cares if a recall is less efficient? Things that are less (small d) democratic are almost always more efficient. Detaining people in Guantanamo is lot easier than holding a trial, but that doesn't make it right.

The fact is, it is not necessarily a good thing that an elected official can be removed just because he or she pisses off other officials. Here, Dann is a dirt ball, but hard cases make bad law, as they say.

LOL - I am SO bad at sarcasm

Jill — Thu, 15 May 2008 06:25:26 -0700

Oh no, Mod - I'm sorry - lol - me - the ODP called me more than once re: off the record chats and I continued to press my concerns etc. And I wrote about that.

So when the PD dismisses this stuff, seriously - they sound as though they do not have a clue.

Sorry - I totally agree with what you wrote - I wasn't insinuating anything at all about you. Sorry for the confusion - okay - I will stick to only writing serious stuff. lol :)

Jill?

modernesquire — Thu, 15 May 2008 06:18:25 -0700

I'm not entirely sure what to make of your comment. If your suggesting that I got off-the-record calls from the ODP, the Governor's office, or anyone associated with the above, I didn't.

I don't have sources. I simply don't. And I mentioned that impeachment was a possibility before Strickland ever mentioned it.

Sorry, but I think I might be losing something in the translation in reading your comment?

Got it all wrong (sarcasm alert)

Jill — Thu, 15 May 2008 06:08:10 -0700

Hey! I got off the record calls from the ODP because of my blogging during which I continued to tow the line I wrote about repeatedly. I am 100% CERTAIN that it was ME ME ME. Because hey, 281 readers can't be wrong, right? (end of sarcasm, but the reader count is about right)

OMG. You are so right re: the PD. CRAZY.

Keep those impeachment articles...

allwitness — Thu, 15 May 2008 06:05:04 -0700

reading them over-and-over again will be a nice alternative to watching constant 30-second commercials with Rich Cordray standing next to Marc Dann.

Impeachment works, but the Plain Dealer lashes out at the Democrats rather than eat crow

modernesquire — Thu, 15 May 2008 05:19:40 -0700

When did the Ohio Republican Party take over the Cleveland Plain Dealer's editorial pages? It's just amazing the lengths they are going to avoid from admitting that they were wrong. Consideration of impeachment wasn't a waste of the legislature's time and was the most effective way to force Dann out of office, far more efficient than a recall effort (which the Plain Dealer advocated). Within twenty-four hours of articles of impeachment being introduced and the legislature passing legislation authorizing the Inspector General to investigate the former Attorney General to aid the House in its consideration of impeachment charges, Dann resigned.

And yet, the Plain Dealer's editorial board STILL insists that impeachment was not the factor:

Neither did all the Democratic posturing about impeachment. Were they not so offensive to the Ohio Constitution, the articles of impeachment against Dann introduced by Gov. Ted Strickland's disciples on Tuesday would have been laughable.

Laughable even though they were based on the same standard that would have been required for a recall, which the PD declared would have been appropriate for the circumstances? Laughable even though every constitutional scholar said that any impeachment consideration would likely be based on those issues? Even though every constitutional scholar in Ohio agrees that consideration of impeachment in Dann's case was in line with Ohio's scarce historical precedents?

No, what apparently scared Dann right out of office was the Republican-initiated investigation of Dann's office by Ohio Inspector General Tom Charles - an investigation authorized by the legislature and signed off by the governor. Only after the legislature mandated the inspector general probe did Dann begin trying to cut a deal to drop the investigation in return for his resignation.

Yeah, those Republicans initiated the investigation all on their own. It had nothing to do with last week's press conference when Governor Strickland and the other Democrats called for an independent investigation of the Attorney General and for the House to consider impeachment of Dann? No, wait, that's right, Speaker Husted said he would have to introduce the legislation because he believed the House lacked the proper resources to do an investigation to consider impeachment. The Republicans made no mention of such legislation until after Strickland's call. Strike two, PD.

Oh, and as for which played a bigger role?

Dann reportedly was shocked at the unity of the House Democratic Caucus when it introduced its articles of impeachment. That's when he started negotiating.

Strike threeee.... Yer out, PD!