The indictment of Mayor Adams has led to a close examination into how he could be removed from office. There are potential options that are in the hands of the governor and the City Council. One entity that will have no role in cutting short Adams’ term is the voters, as New York remains one of the few states without any possible recall law for local officers. Would a recall law be beneficial? While states like California, Michigan and Wisconsin may be the most prominent, somewhere between 39 and 42 states have laws that allow recalls for some local officials, while 20 also allow it for some state-level officials. In a few states, the laws are extremely limited — hence the vagueness in the number — but over the last 15 years, there have been either recall elections or resignations in 35 states and the District of Columbia. While recalls are rare on the state level, with only four governors, 40 state legislators and five others facing a recall vote in 116 years, they are a semi-regular feature in local elections. Numerous big city mayors in the U.S. — well, relatively speaking — have faced recalls, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Omaha, Miami-Dade County, and, on this coming Election Day, Oakland. Internationally as well, mayors in major population centers such as Warsaw, Poland, Lima, Peru, and Kaohsiung, Taiwan have had recall elections. There is no particular reason that New York does not have the recall. One factor is that recalls, as well as other direct democracy provisions like the initiative, first regained popularity in America in the Western states. This may be because older states had numerous existing groups and market sectors vying for power. The late, and quick, creations of the Western states allowed a small group of entities to gain dominance, most notably the Southern Pacific Railroad in California, which forced voters to develop innovative measures to gain power. That said, Eastern states have adopted the recall, including New Jersey in 1993, with almost 75% in favor. While recall laws vary, all require a collection of enough valid signatures — a percentage that is tied to either the amount of registered voters or voter turnout in previous elections. It is at this stage that most recall attempts fail. The challenge for a mayoral recall in New York is that any signature requirement would be enormous. But when recalls surmount that hurdle, they are quite successful. From 2011-2023, 61.7% of recalls that went to a vote resulted in removal. Additionally, 6% of officials resigned in the face of a serious threat. The recall was designed to operate as a “gun behind the door,” wielded by voters to remove officials and it has worked that way. Recalls are seen as a weapon against corruption, but generally they are not about misuse of office or partisan issues, but rather about policy disagreements. Issues such as firing a police chief or superintendent, housing and development questions, or taxes or utilities are the vast majority of precipitating factors in recalls. The policy focus can be one reason that officials are opposed to such laws, as they may feel unfairly targeted for early retirement based on decisions that they made that would be unpopular in the short term, but have lasting long-term benefits. Of course, all elected officials probably feel that way about every action they take, so there is good reason that many of the adopters of the recall have ignored this position. There is no real evidence that the recall has a particularly negative effect, nor is there reason to believe that non-recall states such as New York or South Carolina are inherently better governed. However, some states have a significant limitation on recalls that attempt to simply target corruption. Eight states have a “malfeasance standard” that limits recalls to statutorily delineated reasons, such as an indictment or conviction. In Oregon, a state with a recall law, but no impeachment procedure, Gov. John Kitzhaber resigned in a scandal in 2015 rather than face a recall. It is possible that he would have been much less likely to leave office without that threat. For New Yorkers, a recall could be a powerful weapon at a moment like this and certainly could expedite a change in leadership. Spivak is a senior fellow at the Hugh Carey Institute for Government Reform based at Wagner College and is a senior research fellow at Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center. He is the author of “Recall Elections: From Alexander Hamilton to Gavin Newsom.”