Is there sufficient interest in recalling Max Baucus? (Conrad, Carter: section 8, attorney)

[Walter Greenspan]

.
.
Petition to Potentially Recall U.S. Senator Max Baucus is a petition to determine if there is sufficient interest to recall Sen. Baucus.
.
.

[mtn_viking]

No.

[cedar_bluff_tree_farm]

I'm Maxxed Out!

[Reziac]

Firstoff, I'd want to see more specific charges than just "failed to represent" etc, etc. which is way too vague.

Second, I have mixed feelings about Baucus. Sometimes he seems to do well for We The People; other times I want to whap him upside the head.

But so long as power in the Senate depends so heavily on seniority, having one of the most senior senators is about all that keeps MT from being raped. And if we've got to have a Democrat, I'd rather have a relative moderate like Baucus, not a far-left wacko like some we could name. His replacement could be worse. (Haven't we heard that tune before, say, in Nov.2008?)

However, if we had more states' rights and less federal government, we wouldn't need that seniority, eh??

.

[Ric Carter]

The state constitution has a section limiting the amount of time representatives can serve. Max is beyond the term. The State Secretary of State should be held responsible if his name should appear on the next ballot.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Ric Carter

The state constitution has a section limiting the amount of time representatives can serve. Max is beyond the term. The State Secretary of State should be held responsible if his name should appear on the next ballot.

That's an interesting point ... got a cite on the term limit provision?

And here's a question for you: if an elected official (referring to any of them, not specifically to Baucus) is doing well for the citizens he represents, do you really want to get rid of him just because he's been there "too long"?? There are always some bad ones who need that new broom, but seems to me term limits throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Term limits sound good, but are liable to work against voters' best interests in the long run. A couple decades back CA voters imposed term limits on public office, and the result was disaster. Termed out all the good office-holders, and now the bad ones are being churned into HIGHER offices, where they can do more damage! (Bad ones seem to have more success at getting elected to a new and different office than good ones do, probably because slimes are better at gaming voters.) And what used to be a fairly reasonable state legislature turned into a totally partisan battleground, where it's all about garnering favours for your next stint in a more powerful office (Assembly members become Senators next go-round, etc.)

.

[MTSilvertip]

The term limits only apply to State Representatives and offices, not the federal ones. That went to court when the term limits were enacted in the late 1990s.

Senority didn't seem to matter much when Conrad Burns was voted out, performance didn't seem to matter either.

Baccus has been there far too long and has no idea what Montana is like anymore, he votes for whatever will improve his status in the democrat party.

The only good thing I can say about max is we only hear from him during election years, the rest of the time he stays home in Washington DC or with his campaign doners in California.

Would I like to see a change? You bet!

[Ric Carter]

Article III, General Government, Section 8, Limitations on terms of office; (1) The secretary of state or other authorized official shall not certify a candidate's nomination or election to, or print or cause to be printedon any ballot the name of a candidate for, one of the following offices, if, at the end of the current term of that office, the candidate will have served in that office or had he not resigned or been recalled would have served in that office: (a) 8 or more years in any 16 year period as governor, secretary of state, state auditor, attorney general, or superintendent of public instruction; (b) 8 or more years in any 16 year period as a state representative; (c) 8 or more years in any in any 16 year period as a state senator; (d) 6 or more years in any 12 year period as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives; and (e) 12 or more years in any 24 year period as a member of the U.S. Senate. (2) When computing time served for purposes of subsection (1), the provisions of subsection (1) do not apply to time served in terms that end during or prior to January 1993. (3) Nothing contained herein shall preclude an otherwise qualified candidatefrom being certified as nominated or elected by virtue of write -in votes cast for said candidate. SO, Max has been in there for around 31 years. Does subsection (2) give him a dodge in this? I don't believe so, as that would still put him beyond his term limitations.

[Reziac]

Interesting statute. What do y'all see it doing to Montana politics? Has it termed out any legislators you'd have rather kept?

I do agree Baucus has gotten out of touch, but who do we have who'd do better for us? Serious question... beings how last time I researched one of his election rivals I came away thinking the other guy was a nutjob (don't recall offhand who it was), which wasn't progress.

I'm sure there must be plenty of Montanas capable and competent, but electable?? that's a different question entirely.

[Ric Carter]

The way it is written, the only legal way Baucus can run, is under a write in campaign. This would put a greater burden on him to find actual supporters, rather than those who mindlessly vote on name recognition. As it is, it is illegal for any state office to allow his name to be placed on the common ballot.
I don't know if it has removed anyone from office, but even though a good representative may be removed, the poor ones removed would be a sum gain. Some point to the fact that Max is head of the Finance Committee, a powerful position in D.C. I would point out while he has been in that position, he has shown no responsibility in curtailing spending in an already over extended economy. It is time for him to go.