Reader Adam Z. sent along this report of political gossip in Colorado that Sen. Evie Hudak, the latest Democratic lawmaker up for recall, has agreed to resign if there are enough signatures to have an election.
Having a recall election is risky because it can apparently send the Colorado Senate into GOP hands, something the party wants to stop at all costs. By having Sen. Hudak resign instead of face recall, the Democrats get to appoint a successor and keep the Senate control. In exchange for her not risking the Party’s control, she would, according to the site, get a say in who replaces her.
I would expect nothing less. That whole thing about “the ends justify the means” thinking that permeates the “good” progressive movement.
Couldn’t they just go and collect signatures to recall whoever the replacement is?
This :)
Because even getting the recall petitions signed costs thousands upon thousands of dollars. The recall campaigns themselves cost the range of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. With a billionaire like Bloomberg willing to step in any time we see even a glimmer of success in this unique elections, they would bleed our side dry in no time. That’s just in dollars, and that doesn’t include the thousands of hours of volunteer hours. You’d have to ask people to effectively make signature gathering a full-time job for which they receive very little pay. Are you willing to ask gun owners to effectively turn their backs on their real lives to spend every day in a never-ending campaign?
I get the spirit behind these comments, but it’s not practical, nor is it worthwhile to get someone’s hopes up who doesn’t realize just how much money and work goes into these efforts.
There’s also a time factor.
It may not even be possible to recall a replacement candidate right away.
That said actions like this do deliberately give the sense of “We’re the ruling class, we have more money, shut down and go back to the tax farm, serf.”
It only sends that message to the tiny percentage that are (1) paying attention and (2) not ideologically in the tank with the side on the hot seat.
Will that cynical move torque off the average Colorado voter?
Not just in her district, but state wide?
This type of move just seems to put off the inevitable, especially if the replacement is a carbon copy of the original seat holder. They’re going to piss off a lot of voters just to hold onto the seat a little longer. But they’re going to lose it eventually. And the additional irritation with the Democrats in charge could well swing the whole body toward the Republicans in the next cycle. Seems like a short-term fix that’s going to cause long-term problems.
There may be something good that can come of that kind of stunt. It could galvanize the voters a change in law.
I’m thinking what would be a reasonable amendment would be that, once the required number of signatures is turned in for the seat, there will be an election for a replacement. If the recallee resigns instead of facing the recall election, they shall be considered to have conceded the challenge, and the voters only have to choose their replacement. You can keep the process where a party provides a replacement, but only as an interim officer holder until the election, and I’d further stipulate that the interim office holder is not eligible to be a candidate on the ballot.
Of course, a simpler answer would be to get rid of the party nominated replacement scam.
You think they’ll be able to do that when the Democrats retain the Senate because of this little game and, historically, Democrats have been the only ones to lose in the recall process? :) Changing the law means getting them to pass something.
I also understand where people are disgusted by this concept, but I really don’t think it’s enough to motivate people to act again.
Forcing a state senator to resign because of her vote for gun control is a powerful message all on its own.
Don’t lose sight of that. Hudak voted for gun control, and now she is out of a job and the rest of her party is terrified of being forced into the same boat.
The next session will bring some pro-gun moves to undo these laws. Hudaks’ resignation will still aid the fight, especially when a vote to not rescind the laws will be considered a second vote in favor of them.
That is a very good point, and one reason why I think folks should not worry about trying to recall a Democratic appointment if she does resign. Let the dirty political games stick to them and turn attention to the 2014 race at that point.
What this says is that the Party felt that the risk of losing their majority was more important than protecting Hudak.
That’s a heck of an incentive to vote for gun control.