Why The Recall Recount Will Probably Fail

In an earlier email exchange concerning the statement of reasons for the recall of Funkhouser, I was assured by one of the organizers that “the petition and affidavit document are on the same page of paper in a large portion of the petitions printed later in the recall effort.” He further explained, in a comment to this blog, “Did you examine the document, maybe even flip it over to see the affidavit is printed on the other side of the petition to save paper?


From the City Code:

Sec. 730. Signatures to petitions.
The signatures to an initiative, referendum, or recall petition need not all be appended to one paper, but to each separate petition paper there shall be attached an affidavit of the circulator thereof as provided by this section. Each such petition paper shall consist of sheets of uniform size, printed and signed on only one side.

If the organizer was accurate in his claim that a large portion of the petition printed later in the recall effort were printed on both sides, then it seems that all those petitions should be rejected for violating the clear provisions of Section 730.

I don’t know – maybe there are sufficient signatures on one-sided petitions to carry the day, and I’m not certain whether the double-sided petitions were rejected in the initial count. Judging from what the recall organizers have publicly stated, though, it appears the recall recount ought to fail.

17 Responses to “Why The Recall Recount Will Probably Fail”

  1. I Travel for JOOLS says:

    A sensible law.

  2. Anonymous says:

    The law appears to only be relevant to signatures on petitions; not text that may be printed on the other side. As long as the signatures and the printed information associated with that signature is only on one side, it should be valid.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Sec. 730. Signatures to petitions.

    The section deals with the signatures. geez, aren't you supposed to be lawyer?

    On another note, hasn't Funk LOST everyone one of his legal challenges so far?

  4. Dan says:

    Anonymous – I gather you haven’t studied the law at all, or you would know that the title of an ordinance is something called “surplusage”. The law means what it says – “Each . . . petition paper shall consist of sheets . . . printed . . . on one side only.”

    As for Mark’s won/loss record, I can only think of one matter that has gone to final judgment. If he had won, would you be claiming he’s automatically correct on this one? Regardless, I’m the one making this argument, and I’m not wrong.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Dan, your defense of the behavior of our current mayor certainly says a lot about you, and the values you stand for.

  6. Dan says:

    True. I try to stand up for logic and the rule of law, even in the face of unthinking mobs. Thank you for noticing.

  7. O'Reilly Killed Tiller says:

    Rule of Law — except when it comes to nepotism, free cars and throwing public money at a business partner’s son.

    Do you EVER open both eyes Dan?

  8. Dan says:

    Both eyes wide open here. Care to point out where anyone with more intellectual authority than an anonymous blog commenter has held that Funkhouser has broken any laws?

  9. Anonymous says:

    Dan you started this blog as an anonymous blogger and remained under the cloak until The Star “outted” you, so don’t be so hard on yourself.

    Furthermore, if you are going to show contempt for anonymous posts that you disagree with then jus ttake away the anonymous option from your blog.

  10. inafunkaboutthefunk says:

    Anon 649 has a point Dan. You have become mighty thin skinned in your old age!

  11. Dan says:

    It’s not so much that the commenter is anonymous, it’s just that s/he has absolutely no intellectual authority to stand by his/her claim that Funkhouser has violated any law. If s/he were to cite some source other than his or her own unsupported, anonymous opinion, that would be legitimate discussion. As it stands, it’s just hot air from someone willing to back it up with neither authority nor a reputation.

    I’m not particularly thin-skinned about it – I was simply pointing out how weak and unpersuasive s/he is.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I gather you haven’t studied the law at all, or you would know that the title of an ordinance is something called “surplusage”.I disagree. The title limits the subject matter and scope of the ordinance.

    Applying broad meaning to something that is being specifically addressed is senseless. In this case, the provision refers to the signature portion of the petition.

  13. inafunkaboutthefunk says:

    The bigger point in all this is what you have missed, Dan. The Funk has irritated enough regular voters that he has come within inches of being expunged. No power brokers, real estate guys, City Hall insiders in on the recall initiative… just a bunch of regular folks. And before you argue that several of the organizers have been politically active… so what? No major player was in on this and nary a soul put up a dime!!! The crude delusional divisive and Just Plain Stupid Funk has acted so badly that he has caused yet another historical moment… people trying through legal means to get rid of him early.

    You can argue about the signatures and how many pieces of paper got submitted and what local ordinance didn't get followed to the letter but at the end of the day, the message is clear: The People Of KCMO are Mad As Hell and Don't Want To Take Sh-t From These Two Clowns Anymore!!!! Not for another two years… not for another two minutes :)

    Live with it, Dan.

  14. Dan says:

    Less than 5% of the population signed a petition. I'm impressed with the work done, but, if they don't succeed in forcing a recall election, it's just so much hullaballoo about nothing.

  15. Anonymous says:

    I smell toast.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Dan, less than 20 percent of voters turned out in the mayoral election and Funkhouser barely got half of those voters — so do you really want to argue percentages in defense of Mr. 10 percent?

  17. inafunkaboutthefunk says:

    Dan, are you defending the Funk? In an era where catching people's attention and then getting them to do anything is so very difficult, the recall effort stands tall. And if any person or people of influence stepped up to assist them, the Funk would have been toasted without a recount.

    You should be a man and acknowledge that the Reign Of Inadequacy, Embarrassment and Humiliation of Mayor Funk has generated a whole bunch of ager from the REGULAR, Orange Revolution citizens. And it really isn't because of any thing he has accomplished (there have been very few if any positive accomplishments) but because he has acted badly, lied repeatedly and created an public nightmare which many of us want to come to an end.

    Stand up Dan…. acknowledge what is an irrefutable fact!

Leave a Reply