State rife with corruption needs recall law

On Wednesday, tensions in Springfield boiled over into an R-rated rant.

"Stop the (expletive)!" yelled Democratic state Rep. Jay Hoffman, with the obscenity referring to what passes naturally from a bull being heard over the Capitol loudspeaker system.

What made Hoffman angry is a legislative proposal to allow voters to oust elected officials through a recall vote. It's clearly aimed at Gov. Rod Blagojevich, so we can understand why Hoffman would be angry. He is the governor's chief ally in the House.

In previous editorials on recall measures, we have agreed with Hoffman that there are more important things on the legislative agenda than seeking to amend the state constitution to allow for recall.

Yet we can't overlook what is driving this particular recall movement: the governor's job performance. It's dismal. There's no other way to describe it.

But justification for a recall provision goes well beyond giving voters a chance to weigh the risks of keeping Blagojevich in office. If any state needs to give voters the power to recall elected officials, it is Illinois, with its long history of malfeasance in public office.

Once again, voter confidence in government has been shaken by yet another federal investigation of state corruption. This time in the form of allegations of shakedowns, influence peddling and extortion schemes in the trial of Antoin "Tony" Rezko.

Before this, of course, there was Republican George Ryan, who was the third Illinois governor in just the last four decades to be sent to jail on corruption convictions. Democrats Dan Walker and Otto Kerner are also on this ignominious list.

It's not just governors; other public officials have been snared in corruption investigations.

If voters can put the fear of recall into the minds of public officials, it can heighten accountability and competency and discourage dishonesty. That would be the hope, anyway. What else do voters have to be confident that the state will get its house in order? Wide-ranging, effective governmental reforms? No. A commitment to rooting out corruption? No.

We understand that there are risks in allowing recall. It potentially opens the door for abuses by disgruntled single-issue groups. They could use it as a means to get rid of good public officials who just don't happen to agree with their take on things. Elected officials who are serving capably could find themselves being forced to turn their attention away from governing to defending themselves.

There could also be significant expense associated with holding a special election that would be required in the wake of a recall.

But even the governor himself supports the concept of recall, of which he is a target. And 18 other states are living comfortably with recall provisions of their own.

For too long, the people of Illinois have been forced to witness an embarrassing procession of corrupt public officials into federal court, and incompetence in government, both of which have abused their hard-earned tax dollars and shaken their faith in some of those they've elected to serve them. They might not feel as powerless if they had the chance to recall them from office, to correct their mistakes.