Democracy shouldn’t end on Election Day

Democracy gives voters the power to choose their elected representatives. But should that power end on Election Day?

That is the question behind an effort led by Oak Park native and OPRF graduate Jacob Drews to establish a right of recall in Oak Park. Organizers are collecting signatures to place a binding referendum before voters. The petition itself does not recall anyone. It asks voters whether Oak Park should establish a process that could be used in the future to recall local elected officials.

As a former elected official myself, I support giving voters that right.

Representative democracy creates necessary efficiency. We elect people, entrust them to study complicated issues, exercise judgment and make decisions consistent with community values. We should not govern by referendum every Tuesday night. But representative democracy should leave room for participatory democracy and meaningful checks on elected power.

Four years is a long time. Extraordinary circumstances can arise after an election. The probability of this risk is low but the impact is significant as seen in Dolton, IL. An elected official can violate the public trust, become unresponsive to the community or act in ways voters could not reasonably have anticipated. Today, voters may have little practical recourse other than waiting for the next election.

Recall provides another option, and importantly, the proposed process has checks built into it. A petition would require signatures equal to 25% of the votes cast in the previous Village President election. That petition does not remove anyone. It triggers a referendum, where a majority of voters participating would have to support removal.

Some have asked: When have we needed this in Oak Park?

But that misunderstands the purpose of checks and balances. Our constitutional system is filled with them. Not because every possible abuse of power had already occurred, but because our system of government recognizes that power should have limits and safeguards. We don't install a fire extinguisher after the fire. A recall provision isn't an accusation against today's elected officials but a safeguard for tomorrow's voters.

There may also be another benefit: greater civic participation.

One of the challenges facing local democracy is getting people engaged on Election Day, let alone between elections. Low participation in local elections should concern all of us. A recall process gives residents another reason to understand what their government is doing, organize around issues, engage their neighbors and ultimately participate at the ballot box. Whether people support or oppose a particular recall, the process asks citizens to participate in their democracy rather than simply observe it.

The objections to this referendum also deserves careful consideration and mitigation. A motivated minority could attempt to punish an official for making a difficult or unpopular decision. Low turnout could give highly organized groups disproportionate influence. The threat of recall itself could potentially pressure elected officials. Those are legitimate concerns but recall by petition is not removal by petition. The petition puts the question before the electorate. The final control remains with voters. That doesn't mean every unpopular decision deserves a recall. Democracy also requires accepting decisions we disagree with, allowing elected officials to exercise judgment, and recognizing that governing cannot become a permanent campaign. Recall should be an extraordinary democratic safeguard, not a substitute for elections or political disagreement.

Another concern is how a vacancy created by recall would be filled. If the existing appointment process could result in an unelected replacement, that deserves careful attention. If voters exercise the extraordinary power to remove an elected official, the process for replacing that official should reflect the same democratic principle. A right of recall should return power to voters, not unintentionally transfer it from voters to another elected official. Any recall system should preserve and strengthen, rather than inadvertently weaken, democratic accountability.

Oak Park has already demonstrated an appetite for greater citizen participation. In 2024, 85% of voters participating in an advisory referendum supported giving residents an initiative process to propose ordinances through petition and referendum.

Representative democracy should remain our primary system, but democracy ultimately belongs to the people. The question isn't whether we need to recall someone today. It is whether voters should retain that democratic safeguard if someday they do.

I believe they should.