We are concerned. As a former Colorado secretary of state, county commissioner and city council member, and a former Colorado state representative and state senator, we are writing today as two of your fellow citizens who not only have been elected to office but also have played a large part in formulating and advancing the management and supervision of election law(s).  

Among those laws recall elections are among the most serious tools available to voters. They exist for moments when an elected official has engaged in corruption, criminal behavior, violation of the constitution, or a clear abuse of public trust. These are circumstances so grave that waiting for the next election would cause lasting harm to the public interest. 

Used sparingly and responsibly, recalls strengthen representative government. Used casually, they weaken it and cost the taxpayers. 

In recent years, Colorado has seen a growing tendency to deploy recall elections not in response to misconduct, but in reaction to ordinary policy decisions. The current recall effort involving Colorado Springs City Councilman Tom Bailey reflects that broader shift and raises important questions about how recall elections are being used and what precedent that use sets. 

Councilman Bailey was elected to serve a full term and to exercise judgment on behalf of his constituents. Like every elected official, he has participated in decisions that not everyone agrees with. Those disagreements over development, land use, budgeting, growth, or the direction of city governance are not evidence of wrongdoing. They are the normal substance of representative self-government. 

Elected officials are chosen not simply to mirror public opinion in real time, but to listen, deliberate, weigh competing interests, and make decisions they believe serve the community as a whole. That process necessarily produces disagreement. It always has. 

Recall elections were never intended to function as a mechanism for overturning policy outcomes. They were designed to address behavior, not disagreement. When recall efforts are launched in response to votes taken through established processes, they begin to resemble an attempt to relitigate an election rather than a response to misconduct. 

This is not an isolated occurrence. Across Colorado in recent years, recall efforts and threats have increasingly followed routine legislative actions. Officials have faced recalls for participating in compromise agreements, for adhering to adopted procedures, or for refusing to advance outcomes favored by a particular group. In many cases, the triggering issue has not been corruption or abuse of power, but independence. 

That trend carries real consequences. 

Colorado’s recall laws are among the most accessible in the nation. That accessibility reflects a belief that voters should have a remedy in truly extraordinary circumstances. It also requires restraint. When recalls become a routine political tactic, they impose real and lasting costs on communities. 

Recall elections are expensive for taxpayers. They divert time and attention away from governing and toward campaigning. They slow progress on pressing local issues and inject prolonged uncertainty into public institutions. City councils and other local bodies find themselves focused on political survival rather than public service. 

Over time, the normalization of recalls also discourages capable and thoughtful individuals from seeking public office. Many citizens who would otherwise consider serving decide that the risk, instability, and constant threat of removal are not worth it. Communities lose experience, perspective, and institutional knowledge as a result. 

More fundamentally, frequent recalls erode confidence in elections themselves. When voters are led to believe that an election result is provisional and subject to immediate reversal if a group is dissatisfied, trust in representative government suffers. Self-government depends not only on the right to vote, but on respect for the outcomes of elections, even when those outcomes are disappointing. 

Disagreement is not a failure of the system. It is the system. 

Policy disputes are meant to be resolved through public debate, civic engagement, persuasion, and ultimately the next election. That process allows voters to assess an official’s full record of service rather than reacting to a single decision or moment of controversy. It also preserves recall elections for the rare situations when waiting truly is not an option. 

None of this is to suggest that recall elections should never occur. There are circumstances when they are necessary and appropriate. Corruption. Criminal conduct. Violation of the Constitution. Clear and documented abuses of power. When those thresholds are met, recalls serve an essential role in protecting the public trust. 

But when those thresholds are not met, citizen restraint matters. 

If the bar for recalls continues to be lowered, the consequences will extend well beyond any single official or election. The institutions of representative government will grow weaker. Governing will become more reactive and less deliberative. Accountability loses its meaning when it is applied indiscriminately. 

Recall elections should remain what they were intended to be. Rare. Serious. Reserved for extraordinary circumstances.