Last Tuesday, voters in Colorado Springs and Pueblo went to the polls to decide whether or not Democratic State Senate President John Morse and State Senator Angela Giron should be recalled. Both senators were heavily criticized for their votes of stricter gun regulations in Colorado. Despite their campaign efforts, both senators were recalled by a majority of voters in their districts.
As a tool that the people of Colorado can use to check the power of their representatives, I wholeheartedly believe that recalls are a part of the democratic process. Given that fact, I think it was completely legitimate to put them up for recall. If the people in those districts felt out of tune with their representatives, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to remove them from office?
Many critics of the recall process call it undemocratic because it doesn’t give the representatives the freedom to vote how they wish on tough legislation. But a recall election is a tool that the people, from which the government derives its power, can check its elected officials.
The fact that Senators Morse and Giron were ousted by a majority of their constituents shows that the senators were voting in ways against the wishes of their districts. That being the case, they didn’t deserve to be the representatives for those areas.
This recall election, the first of its kind in Colorado, was especially prominent because of not only the issue of guns but because of the external support thrown into the campaign from Mayor Bloomberg of New York and the National Rifle Association.
Even though these recall campaigns were mostly focused on the issue of guns, had the central issue been anything else, I still feel that holding a recall election is acceptable. Had the senators voted to cut taxes, but a majority of their constituents felt higher taxes was better for social programs then those constituents would also have a right to petition for a recall.
Hypothetical examples aside, the whole reason that the recall process is an element of democracy is that it keeps politicians accountable. It makes sure that these politicians are not running rampant voting for their own beliefs or those of their parties’, but rather voting the way their constituents feel is the best course.
Furthermore, it is not as if any elected official can be recalled at any point. There has to be a petition process where signatures are collected in favor of having a recall election. The number of signatures needed to have the election is 25 percent of the number of voters that voted in that district the previous year. Senator Morse’s petition gathered almost twice the number of signatures necessary which advances the notion that his constituents felt completely out of tune with their representative.
Now, if the debate about recall elections wants to turn towards making them harder to have, then I am all for that. That is a debate where both sides of this issue could find some common ground.
However, to keep the focus on the idea that recall elections are undemocratic is only going to further the tension on this issue.
Although Republicans may have felt like they won a victory in this election, they better be ready to accept the fact that this could happen to them too.
After all, if a Republican is so out of touch with his or her constituents in a district, then why shouldn’t the people of that district hold a recall election to find someone who will better represent their wishes.
Recall elections are simply the attempt of the people to make sure that their representatives are doing their jobs and representing the beliefs of their constituents and not their own.