Frank White opponents could have enough signatures for recall vote — but there's a catch
Supporters of an effort to oust Jackson County Executive Frank White Jr. feel confident they can get a recall measure on the ballot this summer.
If they are successful in forcing a countywide vote – and then prevail at the polls – White's nine-year tenure as the top elected official in county government could come to an end.
But while close to meeting the county charter's requirements to force an election, there's no assurance that they will get enough signatures on petitions to do so.
Asked whether he wanted to discuss the recall effort, the former Kansas City Royals second baseman turned Democratic politician declined the offer.
'Not really,' he said in a text message Thursday morning. 'I'll just continue to do the work.'
Organizers of the grassroots effort to unseat White announced this week that they had gathered and election officials had certified more than half of the 42,900 signatures necessary to put it on the ballot — and that they're continuing to circulate petitions.
Leaders of the volunteer effort are centered mostly in eastern Jackson County. They put out a schedule on Facebook saying when and where they would be collecting signatures this weekend in Independence, Lake Lotawana, Blue Springs and Lee's Summit.
And while their effort persists, White's opponents are hoping another significant chunk of signatures will count in their favor soon too, putting a recall election within reach.
A well-funded dark money group has gathered about 29,000 potentially additional names supporting a recall, 'if not more,' according to that group's spokesman.
But there's a catch.
Democracy in Action has not turned those signatures into the election boards for verification, and for now, they aren't able to.
The political consulting firm the group hired to gather those signatures is holding onto them until Democracy in Action pays them in full for that work.
'We definitely owe them,' Democracy in Action Executive Director Guy Howard said Thursday. 'We kind of went out there without having the funds, so we had some credit with them, and they did the work. And now they're just waiting to be paid.'
Should even half of those signatures be certified by election officials, it could be enough to force a recall election.
'There's still people out there working on collecting signatures, kind of the grassroots movement, because we don't know if Democracy in Action is going to come through and get those released or not,' said County Legislator Sean Smith, who has been a vocal supporter of the recall campaign.
The recall effort grew out of taxpayers' dissatisfaction with how White and county assessment director Gail McCann Beatty set values on real estate for property tax purposes during the biennial reassessment cycle in 2023.
Many homeowners saw big spikes in the taxable values of their homes then and blamed White for the tax increases that followed.
Recall organizers began circulating recall petitions at shopping centers, gun shops and community events that summer. Their efforts had largely stalled by mid-2024.
But consternation grew after White said he would oppose the rollback order that the State Tax Commission issued last August.
In its controversial order, the state commission required Jackson County to reduce the assessed values on three-fourths of the county's 300,000 real estate parcels because the commission said the county's 2023 reassessment process was flawed.
Taxpayers were not given proper notice of their rights to appeal those higher values in 2023, the state commission said, and ordered the county to retroactively cap most assessment increases from that year to 15%.
Signature-gathering events were organized through Facebook groups like Fight Jackson County Missouri Assessments and Recall Frank 7% White – a reference to the single-digit percentage increase on White's own home in 2023, when many others saw huge spikes.
As of this week, those volunteers had turned in about 23,000 valid signatures. They submitted another 6,000 unverified signatures on Wednesday, Smith said.
Many of the latter will likely be disqualified for a variety of reasons. Names of people who don't live in Jackson County don't count, for example.
And because the recall campaign has been going on so long, some people might have signed their names twice on separate occasions many months apart.
'We anticipate we're going to start encountering quite a few duplicates,' said Tammy Brown, the Republican co-director of the Jackson County Election Board. 'People are going to forget they signed it. They're going to think it's a new one. So we anticipate seeing some duplicate signatures, and the system tracks that, so only one signature will count.'
The county election board verifies the signatures of people who live outside of Kansas City. The Kansas City Election Board verifies those with Kansas City addresses.
If enough signatures are certified, a recall election must be held within 60 days of that certification, according to the county charter. Brown said it would be up to the county legislature to set that election date.
As it is an odd-numbered year, there are no regular election dates remaining on this year's election calendar in Missouri, which means a recall would need to be a special election.
A special election typically costs county and Kansas City taxpayers around $1 million, Brown said, but the cost could be lessened by reducing the number of polling sites and poll workers to staff what she thinks would be a low-turnout election.
It also might be cheaper if another taxing district wanted to add a vote for something else to the ballot, but so far none has set an election.
Were the recall petition drive left to volunteers alone, many more months might pass before the organic effort could reach the threshold needed to put White's removal up for a vote.
But Democracy in Action's involvement has potentially sped things up. As a nonprofit formed as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization under the tax code, the group does not have to reveal its donors and has not volunteered that information when asked.
But Missouri campaign finance laws do require Democracy in Action to reveal who it is paying to work on its behalf and for what purpose.
Between November and the end of January, the group spent $182,325, according to its campaign finance reports. All but $7,800 of that was paid to the Kansas City political consulting firm co/efficient.
And of that, $135,000 was spent on collecting signatures. 'Paid petitioners,' is all the reports say.
Howard would not say how much more Democracy in Action owes co/efficient for collecting signatures since its last payment on Jan. 24. His focus now is on raising enough money to pay the firm back.
'We believe we're done. We believe we have enough signatures,' he said.
Even recognizing that some signatures will be disqualified, 'we think we have enough to get us over the hump,' Howard said.
Should there be a recall vote, Democracy in Action won't be alone in needing to ramp up fundraising to bolster a campaign.
As of its April 11 campaign finance report, White's committee Citizens for Frank White Jr. had just $4,900 in the bank.
White was once a hometown hero. As a youngster, he helped build the Truman Sports Complex as a laborer.
He won a starting position on the Royals in the 1970s and went on to earn eight Gold Gloves and help the team win its first World Series title in 1985. He later was manager of the organization's minor league team in Wichita and announced Royals games on TV.
In 2014, he won a seat on the county legislature largely based on his reputation as a ballplayer. The legislature appointed him county executive in January 2016 after his predecessor resigned.
He won election that November to finish out Mike Sanders' term and was re-elected in 2018 and 2022.
But as early as 2019, some residents were growing dissatisfied with his insistence on setting property values for tax purposes as close as he could to their actual market values, which is the standard set by state law.
Even then, some called for his recall. Tempers flared again in the 2021 reassement cycle and boiled over two years later.
In addition to his differences with Smith and other legislators over the issues of property value reassessment, White and a majority of the legislature have been at odds over spending issues for the past two years.
His veto of the proposed 2025 budget has White and five legislators in a stalemate that has resulted in the legislature refusing to approve most spending measures since the first of the year.
On Wednesday, Smith, who is a Republican, and two Democratic legislators – Manny Abarca and Venessa Huskey – sent a letter to the state's Republican attorney general requesting an investigation.
Smith, Abarca and Huskey accused White of failing to work full time as the county's top administrator because during the baseball season he is a coach for the minor league Kansas City Monarchs.
But primarily, they want Andrew Bailey to look into White's recent actions with regard to the budget and his refusal to follow the State Tax Commission's order to roll back 2023 assessments.
White says the rollback order that the tax commission reissued this week is improper and, according to a judge, unenforceable.
White claims that the county has followed state law and done things by the book. He recently agreed to cap property reassessment increases for this current year at 15% because of uncertainty over how litigation over the tax commission order will turn out. But he did so reluctantly, saying the cap would be unfair to those whose values stayed flat or fell because the tax burden would shift on them.
In a prepared statement, he called the letter to Bailey 'a deeply disappointing attempt to mislead the public through false and politically motivated accusations.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trump Just Revoked California's EV Rules. How Much Is California To Blame?
President Donald Trump just revoked California's permission to enforce its nation-leading clean-car rules — and Mary Nichols understands why. 'No one likes being regulated,' she told me ahead of Thursday's Oval Office signing ceremony. Nichols knows that better than almost anyone. As head of California's Air Resources Board for 17 years, she brought the world's biggest automakers to heel using the state's unique authority to go further than the federal government in setting vehicle emissions standards. It's those same automakers who lobbied Trump to 'rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating California's electric vehicle mandate once and for all,' as Trump put it Thursday. It didn't have to get to this point. California officials had been in talks with automakers prior to the November election about how to keep them on board, but the state overplayed its hand, Nichols said. 'Many people were acting on the assumption that it was going to be the Democrats continuing in power,' she said. 'So the state felt like they had all the cards in their hand, and then after the election, it was pretty hard to reset the conversation.' To hear Nichols tell it, California may have gone too far this time in nudging the industry to ever-higher sales of zero-emission vehicles. The rules would have required automakers to hit increasing percentages — 35 percent by model year 2026 and 68 percent by model year 2030 — before reaching 100 percent of new-car sales in 2035. Maybe that would have worked if it were just about California. But a dozen other states are signed on to California's targets, and they have been slower and less generous with incentives and EV charging infrastructure. Where California has more than a quarter of its new car sales coming from EVs, New Jersey is at 15 percent, and New York is under 12 percent, according to the industry's latest figures. 'They were definitely having issues with the California program because they didn't think they could meet the sales numbers in the mandate, especially [Gov. Gavin] Newsom's target of nothing but ZEVs with a deadline attached to it,' Nichols said. 'That was scary, and even the interim targets were going to be hard to meet.' The pendulum has swung against California before: The George W. Bush administration was the first to attempt to deny California's permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require automakers to sell increasing percentages of zero-emission vehicles, and Trump went further in his first term by attempting to revoke the state's already-issued authority. But Republicans had never resorted to doing it through Congress, via an untested maneuver that congressional watchdogs have warned is likely illegal but that still drew 35 Democratic votes in the House and one in the Senate (Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), in the tradition of Detroit's John Dingell). It's a far cry from the bipartisan consensus that reigned when President Richard Nixon famously signed the Clean Air Act, which set federal air pollution levels for the first time but gave California permission to continue going further, owing to its decade-plus of vehicle emissions rules aimed at the smoggy Los Angeles basin. The automakers have been steadily lobbying against the rules since then, with a brief ceasefire from 2009-16, when ten automakers and the United Auto Workers signed a nonaggression pact in President Barack Obama's Rose Garden with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the EPA. That it happened at the same time that the federal government was taking an equity stake in General Motors was no coincidence, said Nichols, who helped broker the pact. 'They saved them from bankruptcy,' she said. California has less recourse this time around. Where Newsom signed deals in 2019 with Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, BMW and Volvo to abide by the state's rules even in the event of federal cancellation, he now only has Stellantis, which signed a separate agreement last year that goes through model year 2030. And several of the state's allies are peeling off. California had 12 other states signed on to follow its lead as of last year, but it now has 10, after Republican-led Virginia dropped out and Vermont delayed enforcement by 19 months. And Democrats are getting cold feet, too: Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed an executive order in April delaying enforcement, and Democratic lawmakers in New York introduced a bill this year to delay their participation by two years. (California and the other 10 states immediately sued Thursday to preserve the emissions standards.) 'If it was only California, I think [automakers] wouldn't have been as eager to jump in on the federal level and work with the Republicans, but it's the fact it's the other states that had the California standards that were killing them, especially New York,' Nichols said. That echoes the automakers' argument. 'The problem really isn't California,' John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a statement after the Senate's vote last month to overturn the rules. 'It's the 11 states that adopted California's rules without the same level of readiness for EV sales requirements of this magnitude.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Real Time': Bill Maher Thinks Newsom Could Be The Next 'Hot Felon' Amid Trump Defiance: 'The Guy For The Democratic Party'
As California's Gov. Gavin Newsom continues to fight Donald Trump's ICE raids and military occupation, Bill Maher sees presidential material. On Friday's episode of Real Time, the comedian suggested Newsom could be 'the guy for the Democratic party, like I always thought he'd be' after the governor and President Trump fought for control of California's National Guard in court. More from Deadline Trump Regains Control Of Troops In L.A. From Newsom Thanks To Appeals Court; Governor Was To Take Command Of National Guard On Friday – Updated Newsom Compares Trump To 'Failed Dictators' In Fiery Speech Over Troops In LA: 'The Moment We Have Feared Has Arrived' What To Know About Saturday's Army Parade, Donald Trump's Birthday And The No Kings Protests 'You know what happens in movies; as soon as there's a big problem, a hero will rise,' said Maher. 'And I think we saw that this week, because Gavin Newsom—this makes me feel good, because people make fun of me all the time. 'Why do you stick with Gavin? He's too far left.' Yeah, but he's been moving to the center lately, and he kinda had his moment now.' Maher added, 'I did a joke in the monologue about it, but he's saying, 'Trump likes this.' I think he might like this too.' After a federal appeals court sided with Trump, Maher shared a news clip of Gov. Newsom challenging the twice-impeached president. 'Come after me, arrest me. Let's just get it over with, tough guy,' said Newsom in the video. 'You think Trump liked having his face on a mugshot? This guy wants his face on a mugshot. He could become like one of the 'Hot Felons',' joked Maher, providing a graphic to make his point. On Wednesday, Newsom condemned Donald Trump in a fiery speech after the president deployed nearly 5,000 troops to LA amid ICE raid protests, lambasting the 'brazen abuse of power by a sitting president [that] inflamed a combustible situation, putting our people, our officers and even our National Guard at risk.' 'Look, this isn't just about protests in LA. This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first — but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next,' said Newsom, adding: 'Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived.' Gov. Newsom's speech came less than an hour after LA Mayor Karen Bass issued a dusk-to-dawn curfew for tonight on a on-mile square area of DTLA. After Trump Golden federalized State National Guard on June 7 as protestors focused on federal buildings being used as makeshift detention centers, 4,000 members of the Guard are downtown along with 700 U.S. Marines. Seen by many as a prelude to invoking the Insurrection Act, Trump's order to put National Guard boots on the tense streets of LA came without any consultation with Newsom, the Governor has said repeatedly the past few days. Newsom's sharply-crafted words prefaced a federal judge's Thursday ruling that Trump 'return control of the California National Guard' to the governor, a decision that was quickly overturned by an appeals court ahead of a June 17 hearing on the matter. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Florida Supreme Court halts state Bar's role in appointments to ABA policymaking panel
As part of an ongoing conservative backlash against the American Bar Association, Florida's highest court has asked The Florida Bar to stop "making appointments to the ABA House of Delegates," its policymaking body. In a June 12 letter to Bar executive director Joshua Doyle, Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos G. Muñiz said "many of the ABA's policies take positions on contested political and policy disputes over which reasonablepeople can and do disagree." Muñiz, who was an official in President Donald Trump's first administration, added that the "Bar strives to avoid entangling itself, even indirectly, in contentious policy debates" and its "practice of making appointments to the ABA's House of Delegates is inconsistent with that goal." The Florida Bar operates as an arm of the Florida Supreme Court to regulate the state's more than 114,000 lawyers. The agency "will revise our policies and procedures as directed," a spokesperson said. A request for comment is pending with the ABA. Muñiz's letter came two weeks after the Trump administration's decision to get rid of the ABA's longstanding special access to review federal judicial candidates. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the ABA an "activist organization" that is no longer "a fair arbiter of nominees' qualifications" and "favor(s) nominees put forth by Democratic administrations." The ABA was founded in 1878 with a "commitment to set the legal and ethical foundation for the American nation." For decades, it has reviewed candidates for federal judgeships, positions that are lifetime appointments. "The ABA's steadfast refusal to fix the bias in its ratings process, despite criticism from Congress, the Administration, and the academy, is disquieting," Bondi said. Muñiz was Bondi's chief of staff when she was Florida's elected attorney general. Moreover, the court in March released an administrative order to review whether those who want to practice law in Florida should continue to be required to have a diploma from an ABA-accredited law school. The justices, who decide who gets to be a practicing attorney in the state, are "interested in considering the merits of ... continued reliance on the ABA and whether changes to the (state's attorney admission) rules are warranted." The order creates a workgroup chaired by one of its former members, Ricky L. Polston, now with the Shutts & Bowen law firm. ABA complaints: Lawyers' group fuels Republicans' ire over its negative reviews of Trump judicial picks The ABA's lower ratings for several of the Trump administration's judicial nominees have fed into opposition from the political right, explained Charles Zelden, a history and political science professor at Nova Southeastern University. In Zelden's view, Trump wanted "ideological cohesion" and the ABA wanted the best judges, causing the conflict. In Trump's first term, the president often ignored the ABA when choosing judges. And the association is known to set the standard for "cohesion, predictability and a legal system that operated in a coherent and legal manner," Zelden said. The Supreme Court's letter, he added, demonstrates how much it has turned to the right under Gov. Ron DeSantis, who appointed five of the seven current justices, including Muñiz. The letter made clear that it represents all the justices but one: Jorge Labarga. Labarga was appointed by then-Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican who became an independent before becoming a Democrat. He was first appointed as a trial court judge by the state's last Democratic governor, the late Lawton Chiles. And he's often the sole dissenter on substantive opinions. Muñiz's letter to the Bar is "a very Trumpian, MAGA way of viewing the events," Zelden said, referring to conservative antipathy toward the ABA. This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Florida Bar told to stop naming delegates to ABA policymaking panel