Will Frank White recall get delayed? What county legislators and lawsuits say
Legislators had initially set the election date for Aug. 26. But in the face of multiple legal challenges and concerns from local election boards, they introduced an ordinance Monday supporting a Nov. 4 election to recall White, a Democrat and former Royals Hall of Famer who has served as county executive since 2016.
The ordinance suggests that Nov. 4 — when a county election is already scheduled — would be the next most appropriate date if a 'lawful election date' could not be found within 60 days of when voters submitted the petition prompting a recall vote, which is the timeline outlined in the county's charter.
Supporters of the recall effort submitted signatures to the Kansas City and Jackson County election boards, which certified 43,011 valid signatures on June 30, breaking the required signature threshold by 109 names. Along with vocal organizers in Eastern Jackson County, many of the signatures were collected over the course of two years by a dark money political action group.
White's opponents have cited disagreement with his handling of Jackson County's property tax assessments in recent years, as well as the 2024 tax question that would have funded a new Royals stadium in the Crossroads.
White's chief of staff Caleb Clifford said that he and White are concerned that the legislature introduced an ordinance around a Nov. 4 election while the older ordinance supporting an earlier date still stands.
'Moving forward with setting an election date without first rescinding the prior ordinance and ensuring full legal compliance could result in two unlawful, unbudgeted elections, costing taxpayers millions and requiring the County to once again draw from out dwindling emergency reserves,' Clifford said.
The scheduled Nov. 4 election is already set to include a ballot measure about amending the Jackson County Charter to make the role of county assessor an elected position starting in November 2028. Currently, Jackson County is the only county in Missouri where the county assessor is appointed rather than elected.
Third District At-Large Legislator Megan Smith (formerly Marshall) sponsored the ordinance supporting a Nov. 4 recall, which was assigned Monday to the legislature's Intergovernmental Affairs Committee. Smith was the only legislator to abstain from a July 18 vote overriding White's veto of an earlier ordinance recommending an August 26 special election.
The Jackson County and Kansas City election boards have been advocating for a Nov. 4 date for multiple weeks, arguing that state and federal law afforded them a longer timeline to administer an election.
During the July 18 vote, Smith echoed their concerns, noting that an August election date may disenfranchise voters overseas who will not receive ballots in time or voters who need to vote early or by absentee ballot. Forcing an election in violation of state law could open the door for other lawsuits or election results to be invalidated in the future, Smith said.
'I don't know if [the legislature] will get something done before the courts do,' said Tammy Brown, Republican Director of the Jackson County Election Board. 'We'll be happy either way whenever they get settled.'
The legislature and election boards have been involved in conflicting lawsuits, both of which ask the Jackson County court system to issue guidance on when a recall election should take place.
A lawsuit filed July 9 by four Jackson County residents, including former chairs of both the Democratic and Republican parties of Jackson County – Phil LeVota and Mark Anthony Jones, respectively – asked the court to mandate an Aug. 26 election regardless of any action from either White or the legislature.
The next day, the Jackson County and Kansas City election boards filed their own lawsuit, arguing that the proposed Aug. 26 date could not be legally enforced.
'We have certain federal and state laws we have to follow,' Brown said. 'We understand that they wanted a very speedy, quick election, but all of our elections start 10 weeks out, so we had to follow the law and that's what we've done. That's why we had to file the lawsuit.'
As of Tuesday, both lawsuits have been consolidated into one case. Jackson County judge Mary Wayne Seaton will hear the combined lawsuit on Aug. 1.
Meanwhile, some Jackson County residents and organizations are calling for White to resign before a special election proceeds. The Urban Council, a coalition of civil rights organizations in the Kansas City area affiliated with the Urban Summit, joined LeVota and Sixth District Legislator Sean Smith last week in demanding that White step down.
White has said that he would support a Nov. 4 election, while LeVota has called for a special election in September or October if the courts ruled against an Aug. 26 date. Both White and LeVota have said that running the recall question during a special election outside of Nov. 4 would cost taxpayers about $2 million.
If Smith's ordinance supporting a Nov. 4 election passes, White would have 10 days to veto it, at which point the legislature could overturn a veto with a supermajority of six votes — as occurred with the previous ordinance supporting an August 26 recall election.
However, the final decision on the timing of a recall election for now rests on a judge's decision.
'It's up to the courts at this point,' Brown said. 'We'll have to see what happens.'
Solve the daily Crossword
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
4 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
By scrapping bid for California governor, Harris boosts White House prospects -- if she runs
By closing one door, Kamala Harris has left another ajar. Running for California governor in 2026, which she ruled out Wednesday, would almost certainly have precluded another run for the White House in 2028 — something Harris explicitly did not rule out. There were significant hurdles to attempting both. To have any chance of being governor, Harris would have almost certainly had to have sworn off another presidential bid, convincing California voters that the state's top political job was not something she viewed, blithely, as a mere placeholder or springboard to the White House. There also would have been the practical difficulty of running the nation's most populous state, a maw of endless crises and challenges, while at the same time pursuing the presidency. No California governor has ever done so successfully, though several tried. Harris' much-anticipated decision, announced in a written statement, was not a huge surprise. Unlike others — Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to name a few — Harris has never burned with a fever to be California governor. She had a clear shot at the position in 2016, but opted instead to run for the U.S. Senate, in part because the role seemed like a better launching venue for a try at the White House. Privately, several of those closest to Harris questioned whether she had much appetite to deal with the myriad aggravations of being governor — the stroking and hand-holding of recalcitrant lawmakers, the mind-numbing drafting of an annual budget, the endless march of disasters, both natural and man-made. Not least, many wondered whether Harris would be content returning to the small stage of Sacramento after traveling the world as vice president and working in the rarified air of politics at its peak. There is every possibility that Harris will retire from public life. Sean Clegg, a long-time Harris adviser, noted the Democrat has spent more than two decades in elected office. 'I think she's interested in exploring how she can have an impact from the outside for a while,' Clegg said. For her part, Harris said she looked forward 'to getting back out and listening to the American people [and] helping Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly.' Doesn't sound like life in a cloister. If Harris did run for president, she'd start out as a nominal front-runner, based on her universal name recognition and deep nationwide fund-raising base — advantages no other contestant could match. But she won't scare away very many opponents; the Democratic field in 2028 will most likely be a large and expansive one, as it was the first time Harris ran for president in 2020. (And notably crashed and burned.) Charlie Cook, who has spend decades as a nonpartisan political handicapper, said he would view Harris 'as a serious contender, but no more so than a handful of other people would be.' Normally, Cook went on, her status as the party's most recent vice president would give her a significant, if not overwhelming, edge. 'But I think the desire/need to turn the corner and get some separation from Biden probably strips away any advantage that she would have,' Cook said. Harris got a small taste of the Biden burden she could carry in the 2028 campaign when two of her prospective gubernatorial rivals — former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra — suggested she was complicit in covering up Biden's mental and physical frailties. 'She could say she didn't know,' Villaraigosa taunted in a May interview. 'They can't prove that she did. But last time I looked, she had lunch with him pretty regularly ... She had to have seen what the world [saw] over time and particularly in that debate. The notion that she didn't? Come on. Who's going to buy that?' A strategist for one potential presidential rival suggested Democrats were eager to turn the page on Biden and, along with him, Harris. 'There's a lot of respect for her taking on the challenge of cleaning up Biden's mess in 2024,' said the strategist, who asked to remain nameless to avoid compromising an as-yet-unannounced candidate. 'But I think it's going to be a hard sell. She lost to Donald Trump who was convicted of 34 felony counts and run out of D.C. in shame. There is some blame there for his return.' Should Harris make a third try for the White House, it raises the intriguing possibility of facing her fellow Californian, Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been effectively running for president for the past several months. The two, who came up together in the elbows-out world of San Francisco politics, have had a decades-long rivalry, sharing many of the same donors and, once upon a time, the same set of strategists. If the two ran, it would be the first time since 1968 that a pair of major Californians faced off for their party's presidential nomination. That year, Gov. Ronald Reagan made a late, failed attempt to overtake Richard Nixon, the former vice president and U.S. senator from California. At it happened, Nixon had waged an unsuccessful 1962 run for California governor after leaving the White House. While that failure didn't stop him from eventually winning the White House, it certainly didn't help. In fact, Nixon left California and moved to the East Coast, taking a job at a white-shoe law firm and using New York City as his political base of operations. Harris' announcement Wednesday promised 'more details in the months ahead about my own plans.' She said nothing about relocating or leaving California behind.
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
These Texas Democrats are at risk under proposed GOP maps
Texas Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a proposal for new congressional maps after President Trump called for the Lone Star State to create five new House seats ahead of the midterms. The proposed maps, filed as Texas lawmakers meet for a special session initially called after Gov. Greg Abbott (R) vetoed a ban on THC, could help Republicans protect their narrow 219-212 House majority by redrawing some Democrat-held seats to incorporate far more Republican voters. If Republicans succeed, they would also, in a reprise of the pivotal redistricting campaign of 2003, destroy the districts of a cadre of progressive Democratic leaders. The GOP already holds 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats, but the changes could boost them to a 30-8 red advantage — though the draft could change as it works toward approval in the state chambers and faces pushback from Democrats. It would also have ramifications for the balance of power within Texas, at least as it pertains to the state's relationship with the federal government. That's because the new map strips one Congressional seat each from the Democratic-controlled urban powerhouses of Houston, Dallas and Austin-San Antonio — cities that offer the main locus of opposition to the state's Republican leaders and Congressional majority. Here are some of the Texas Democrats and districts that could be impacted by the proposed lines: Greg Casar & Lloyd Doggett Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, speaks during a news conference about the threat of default with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Wednesday, May 24, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) One of the biggest changes to the map is in Rep. Greg Casar's (D-Texas) 35th Congressional district around Austin and San Antonio, which went to former Vice President Harris by 33 points in November — while the state went to Trump by 14 points overall. Since his election to Congress in 2022, Casar, a former labor organizer and Austin city councilman, has emerged as part of a new generation of progressive leaders and currently chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The new map would take Casar's district out of his Austin power base, creating a new +10 Trump district outside of San Antonio, according to analysis on X by Dave Wasserman, the senior editor of Cook Political Report. But while that 'nukes' Casar's district, he argued that in a good midterm year Democrats could still hold that seat. Casar, who has referred to redistricting as a 'five alarm fire,' called the destruction of his district 'illegal voter suppression of Black and Latino Central Texans, Casar said on X. The changes could set up a potential primary matchup with Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D), who leads what's currently the 37 th District. 'By merging our Central Texas districts, Trump wants to commit yet another crime— this time, against Texas voters and against The Voting Rights Act,' Casar said. Doggett said on X that his 'sole focus' at this point is 'defeating this Trump-imposed gerrymandering.' 'Trump is taking a hatchet to chop up Austin and our state with the sole objective of maintaining his one-man rule.' Julie Johnson & Marc Veasey Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) on Tuesday, June 24, 2025. The new map reshapes Texas's 32 nd and 33 rd Congressional Districts, currently held by Democratic Reps. Julie Johnson and Marc Veasey, respectively. The shift creates a new Dallas Fort Worth-area +18 Trump seat in the 32nd, according to analysis by Wasserman, on X — a strong pickup opportunity for the GOP. Tarrant County, the urban county that includes Fort Worth and is split between the 32 nd and 33 rd, is the last of Texas's major urban counties that is controlled by Republicans and a bastion of the state's far right, with whom Veasey has been locked in a contest as part of a broader Democratic attempt to flip the county. Veasy's district would remain blue under the new proposal, according to the analysis from the Texas Tribune, but lose his Fort Worth hometown. In a scathing statement on Wednesday, Veasey blasted the proposed maps as 'part of a long, ugly tradition of trying to keep Black and brown [Texans] from having a voice' and underscored Trump's push for the changes. 'Republicans are bending their knee to a wannabe king, drawing maps in backrooms to appease a man who tried to overthrow an election and now wants to overthrow the will of Texans.' Johnson called the map a 'disaster' and a 'desperate move from a party losing its grip on a changing state.' Part of Johnson's district would also shift to Texas's 30 th, held by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), according to analysis from The Texan. Crockett on Wednesday blasted the proposed lines that 'cut 5 Democratic seats out of thin air,' calling it 'a power grab to silence voters and suppress votes.' Henry Cuellar & Vicente Gonzalez Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), left; Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), right. The Republican map is kinder to conservative Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar, one of Congress's last anti-abortion Democrats, whom the national party backed in his exceedingly narrow victory over progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros in 2022. Under the new map, Cuellar's 28th Congressional District would move to a slightly stronger Trump district — from +7 to +10, according to Wasserman. Rep. Vicente Gonzalez's (D-Texas) seat in the 34th Congressional District would similarly shift from a +5 to +10 Trump district. But the changes for both Cuellar and Gonzalez 'are potentially survivable given ancestral Dem ties & a midterm without Trump on the ballot,' the analyst said on X. A campaign spokesperson told The Hill that Cuellar 'looks forward to continuing to serve the people of South Texas in Congress and advancing the issues that matter most to them.' 'What they forget is that I'm still a lawyer,' Gonzalez said in a statement. 'We will fight this disgraceful attempt to cheat Lone Star State voters in Federal Court, and will win again in an era where Trump is deeply underwater.' Al Green Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) speaks during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on oversight on Capitol Hill in Washington. Among the proposal's dramatic shifts, Rep. Al Green's (D-Texas) seat in the 9th Congressional District would also merge with the empty Democratic slot vacated by the late Rep. Sylvester Turner. That would yield a safe Democratic seat in the 18th, offset by a new 9 th in the more conservative suburbs east of Houston that Wasserman said could be 'a pretty safe GOP pickup.' A special election is ongoing to fill the vacancy for Turner's former seat. 'Let's call this what it is: Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans are trying to wipe Black and Brown communities off the political map. It's a slap in the face to the very folks who built this state,' said Christian Menefee, a former Harris County Attorney who's considered the favorite for Turner's old seat, in a statement. 'We're not backing down. We'll fight like hell to stop it,' Menefee said.
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats ramp up pressure on Trump, GOP over Epstein files with arcane gambit
Democrats on Wednesday ramped up pressure on Republicans over the Jeffrey Epstein files, turning to an arcane rule to attempt to force the release of the documents that have become a significant pain point for the Trump administration and Republicans. Led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), they are seeking the documents via the 'rule of five,' which dates to a 1928 law and requires government agencies to hand over information if any five lawmakers on a Senate or House panel — in this case the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee — request them. The rule is relatively untested in the courts, but that isn't stopping Democrats from using it to turn the screws on an issue that has divided the GOP. 'This is not complicated,' Schumer said at a press conference on Wednesday. 'Every single time Trump, his administration [and] Republican leaders have had a chance to be transparent about the Epstein files, they've chosen to hide.' Schumer was not only flanked by Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the committee's top Democrat, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), but also a sizable placard tying Trump to Epstein, who died in federal prison six years ago while awaiting trial for sex trafficking charges. The picture showed an image of Trump and Epstein at an event, with the president being quoted as saying the disgraced financier was a 'terrific guy,' 'a lot of fun to be with' and 'likes beautiful women as much as I do.' Schumer and all seven Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee signed onto a letter to the Department of Justice demanding the files. 'After missteps and failed promises by your Department regarding these files, it is essential that the Trump Administration provide full transparency,' the Democrats wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi, pointing to promises she and Trump have made. 'We call on you to fulfill those promises of transparency,' they continued. They gave Bondi until Aug. 15 to hand over the relevant documents. The letter marked the latest attempt to put Republicans on the back foot and keep the Epstein issue front and center as lawmakers ready to depart for the August recess. Trump has made a concerted effort to push the discussions surrounding Epstein to the side. He urged his supporters to drop the issue and in recent weeks the administration has released a series of documents related to Hillary Clinton, former President Obama and Martin Luther King Jr. The issue drove such a wedge in the party that it forced the House to break early for the month-long August recess after the chamber became paralyzed due to an uproar from members over the administration's handling of the Epstein files. 'The evasions, the delays, the excuses — they are not just odd, they're alarming,' Schumer said. 'It begs the question: if there's nothing to hide, why all the evasiveness?' In addition, multiple Republicans on the House Oversight Committee's panel on Federal Law Enforcement defied the White House by backing a Democratic-led push to subpoena the Justice Department for its files regarding the Epstein investigation. And Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) moved during a separate Oversight subcommittee hearing to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime Epstein associate who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking. A Maxwell attorney said on Tuesday that she would only speak with the committee if granted immunity. The panel flatly rejected that possibility. The issue had been more muted in the Senate, but Democrats are working to change that. Schumer did not rule out the possibility of utilizing amendment votes to the three-bill funding package that could come to the floor before the August break. He said that they are checking in with members as part of the hotline being run on the planned 'minibus.' And Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) has repeatedly tried to pass via unanimous consent a bill requiring the Justice Department to release the Epstein documents, forcing Republicans to object. It's unclear whether the DOJ will acquiesce to the Democratic 'rule of five' request, and what would happen if they stonewall the effort. 'This is a law,' Schumer told reporters. 'This should be bipartisan, and we're still talking to Republican colleagues about trying to join us and that could help get this public. If not, there's recourse in the courts. This is the law.' 'We have talked to some of our lawyers. This can be challenged in the courts,' he added. A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed receipt of the letter but declined to comment further. And how Republicans plan to handle this is also unclear at this point. 'We're looking into it. Obviously, it's a dated law,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said, labeling the rule 'obscure.' 'I don't know how they came up with it. We're having some lawyers look at it.' Despite claims by Schumer, multiple Republicans indicated that they had not been approached by Democrats to back their push to force the release of the documents even though some have echoed similar calls. 'I've long said, I think DOJ should release all the documents, just like they did with MLK, RFK, JFK,' said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a fellow committee member. 'Everything they've got, they should put it out there.' 'I think it's a little bit more of a stunt. They didn't reach out to any Republicans before,' Hawley added. 'They didn't ask me [to sign the letter].' Multiple Homeland Security Committee Republicans also noted that they utilized the 'rule of five' during the Biden administration on multiple occasions to request documents, but were stonewalled repeatedly. Among the items they sought information about were the origins of COVID-19, vaccine safety and the 'burrowing' of Biden-era political appointees to become nonpolitical permanent roles. 'We were stiffed every time,' Hawley said. 'I don't think we ever got anything substantive.' Whether this is the maneuver that gets it done, some Republicans believe that the administration will eventually end up releasing the documents as the fervor of the MAGA base has shown few signs of letting up over the Epstein files. 'I expect DOJ to get information out, period. I don't think this is what's going to move it out. I think there's plenty of interest in folks to just say, 'Get it out there,'' said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a HSGAC member. The Oklahoma Republican added that conspiracy theories will only grow the longer the files remain behind closed doors. 'The conspiracy theories don't get better with less information,' Lankford continued. They just continue ramping up.'
