A Presidential Recall Amendment

 The Problem

It’s been clear at least since the first attempt to impeach Trump that partisan politics renders the impeachment process and Amendment 25 provisions about removing a president for disability ineffective. Those well-intentioned laws have no realistic chance of succeeding if a party places itself above the national interest as has been the case recently.

In fact, historically, no president has ever been removed by impeachment or an Amendment 25 process. Arguably, Andrew Johnson should have been removed though the articles of impeachment in 1867 were far more political than factual. The impeachments of Clinton and Trump fell well short of the two-thirds Senate vote needed, regardless of the merits of the cases against them, and were determined more by partisan affiliation than by any other cause. And, no Amendment 25 process has ever been attempted; whether one was ever seriously discussed behind the scenes is unknown. The mechanisms in place to remove a disastrous or problematic president have proven not to be viable so far. The one case where the threat of a successful impeachment forced a resignation, Nixon’s, was at best an indirect success.

Since the constitutional mechanisms we have are ineffective especially in partisan, polarized political culture, we need another option. A direct democracy approach would have a credible chance of success without being too easy and thus subject to abuse. The proposal below would not replace Amendment 25 or the Constitution’s impeachment process, but would add a mechanism designed to circumvent the partisan fawning of Congress or the Cabinet over a deeply flawed leader.

 

A Proposed Amendment Text

1. Congress, upon the submission of petition signatures from twenty percent of the number of citizens over eighteen of the United States as determined by the Census Bureau, shall set a date for a presidential recall election to be held within two months.
2. Alternatively, Congress, on the submission of resolutions from state legislatures including the District of Columbia Council representing sixty percent or more of the number of citizens over eighteen of the United States as determined by the Census Bureau, shall set a date for a presidential recall election to be held within two months.
3. No state may refuse to participate in a presidential recall election.
4. The text of the ballot will be, “Shall [name] be recalled and no longer serve as president of the United States?” The only two ballot options shall be “yes” and “no."
5. Removal shall be affirmed up a “yes” vote of at least sixty percent of votes cast.
6. Congress shall certify the results of the election not later than two weeks following election day.
7. At the moment of certification, if the national vote has affirmed recall, the president shall be removed and the next officer in the line of succession sworn into office.
8. Presidents thus recalled lose their presidential pension and would no longer be eligible to hold an elective or appointive office of the United States or any state.
9. Congress shall have the power to enforce these provisions by legislation.

 

Comments

Please note that though a partisan Congress might not want to do these things, sections 1, 2, and 6 require Congress to act if a triggering event occurs. Also, states cannot opt out of a recall election, another support for a nonpartisan and equitable process.

Congress could determine by law how petition signatures would be collected and checked. This could be arranged by adding to the duties of an existing agency under Congressional control such as the Government Accountability Office, or the duties of the clerk of the House or some other nonpartisan officer, or by creating a temporary organization designated for that purpose.

The large number of petitions that would be needed nationally, or the supermajority of citizens 18 and above represented by state legislatures required for the resolution process, would establish a near consensus but provide a reasonable chance of success, probably more so than impeachment. Decisions about leaders should never be on whim, but a widespread belief that it is necessary to remove an official as consequential as the president should also be respected. The sixty percent national vote required for removal would also be difficult to achieve but not unattainable.

Possible obstructions could include quibbling about or contesting Census Bureau numbers related to 1 and 2; a state obstructing voters in the recall election; attempting to delay the certification process, either at the state level or by Congress; and a president refusing to leave when recalled. In those cases, the people of the United States would simply have to insist through lawsuits, other court action, and political pressure.  If necessary, given lengthy obstruction of this process, they might instead choose to institute a new government as discussed in the Declaration of Independence paragraph two.

Retaining an impeachment process would still allow Congress to rise above partisanship and remove a president for cause. Retaining Amendment 25 would still allow the vice-president and Cabinet to act if a president becomes disabled (probably physically). Both have value though both can be abused or neglected because of partisan bias. Adding a presidential recall provides a way around unreasonable, parochial interests.

As of this moment (December, 2025), it seems likely that either method to initiate a recall would have a chance of succeeding if this amendment was currently in place. Collecting petition signatures or waiting for state legislatures to act would not lead to a rapid resolution, but could still do what no portion of the Constitution currently has ever done—remove a president.