Georgia Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Summer 1976), pp. 883-915


Inherent in a system of representative government is the thesis that if those who "represent" do not fulfill the promise or expectation, those who are "represented" must possess the leverage of a remedy. The most obvious of such remedies, of course, is resort to the ballot box at the conclusion of the representative's term of office. The extent to which more drastic remedies are desirable is a provokinig point of perplexity, for few have yet satisfactorily resolved the conundrum of how much pure democracy stability in government can accommodate. The procedure of recall is undeniably one of the more drastic remedies, but it is also well embedded in the history of American government. Remarkably, therefore, recall presents at once a merging of traditional sentiments and modern reforms. Consequently, it is claiming expanded focus in the public spotlight, it is increasingly confronting state and local legislative bodies, and it is popularly attracting litigation in the courts. All these events are presently occurring in Georgia, and appropriate attention should be accorded them.