Governing Magazine has published my article on a deep dive into the question of special elections vs. Regularly Scheduled general elections. At the moment, there's a big debate as to whether specials are an accurate snapshot of the electorate. Since Recalls can take place as either a special Election or on a regularly scheduled general (or primary) election date, that their numbers are particularly useful. This is an update of an earlier article I wrote on this subject.
Most people, including me, believed that recalls that take place as standalone special elections are more likely to result in removal. This is wrong -- in fact, recalls taking place on days tied with general elections are more likely to succeed. But not by that much, which puts me in the camp that special elections are a valuable tool in examining the electorate.
From 2011-2023, I counted 1187 recalls (in 31 states and DC). Another 239 officials resigned in the face of recalls. 729 officials were removed and 458 survived, a 61.4% removal rate.
40% of recalls were on a general or primary election date, 317 resulted in removal (67%). 712 were as standalone specials, 406 removals (57%).
When there is a multi-official recall in a jurisdiction, the clean sweep removal rate was 73% on a general election and 60 % for a special (46 of the multi-recall elections saw a split verdict). (Also, compiling that data was took much longer than I would have hoped).
It could be that ballot placement may be part of the reason why the regularly scheduled election recalls see a higher failure rate -- as can be seen by the Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon recall + reelection numbers.
