In their March 3 opinion column, Bob Gardner and Wayne Williams argue that recall elections should be reserved only for corruption, criminal conduct, constitutional violations, or clear abuses of power. That framing may sound measured, but it narrows the Constitution beyond its design and overlooks why recalls exist.

Recalls are not criminal trials. They are constitutional safeguards.

Colorado’s Constitution does not require an indictment before voters may withdraw their consent. Article XXI allows citizens to recall elected officials through a petition stating their reasons for removal, recognizing that accountability ultimately rests with voters. Public confidence in representation can erode long before criminal misconduct occurs, and the Constitution provides a peaceful mechanism for citizens to respond.

Recall is therefore a political judgment made by voters, not a legal verdict rendered by courts. Gardner and Williams themselves helped shape Colorado’s election framework — one that deliberately places the power of recall in the hands of voters.

Recalls do not overturn elections — they are elections. The same voters who chose an official retain the authority to reconsider that decision when confidence in representation breaks down.

Gardner and Williams suggest policy disagreements should simply wait for the next election.

But representation is not a once-every-four-years transaction. It is an ongoing relationship of trust between citizens and those elected to serve them.

When residents believe their concerns are repeatedly dismissed — whether involving development decisions, public safety, spending priorities, or the direction of growth — they are entitled to use the constitutional tools available to them. Recall is one of those tools.

Far from being casual or easy, recalls require thousands of verified signatures, strict statutory compliance, financial transparency, and months of volunteer effort.

Dana Duggan of Integrity Matters, which supported both the Palmer Lake trustee recalls and the recall effort involving Colorado Springs City Council member Tom Bailey, summarized the principle clearly: “When elected officials forget who they serve, citizens must remind them.”

If an official maintains the confidence of their constituents, recall efforts fail. When a recall reaches the ballot, it is usually because voters believe their voices are no longer being meaningfully considered.

In Colorado Springs, residents have raised concerns that development decisions may outpace public safety considerations. Westside neighborhoods already face some of the longest wildfire evacuation times in the region.

Westside Watch’s President Scott Hiller notes that when public safety concerns appear repeatedly minimized or dismissed, frustration grows. “Recalls protect the people from the politicians who vote against them,” Hiller said.

The recall effort involving Colorado Springs City Council member Tom Bailey reflects that frustration. Residents believed their concerns about neighborhood growth, safety and citizens rights were not being adequately addressed. Mr. Bailey’s resignation demonstrates that the constitutional recall process works as intended — providing a peaceful mechanism for accountability when public confidence breaks down.

As neighborhood leader Timothy Lewin explained, “Elected officials represent the interests of their constituents. When they no longer serve that purpose, they lose the trust and faith of the people. It then becomes the duty of citizens to demand new representation using peaceful and legal means.”

Similar dynamics unfolded in Palmer Lake. Residents organized around concerns about governance and growth decisions. Voters participated in recall elections involving four trustees and later approved a ballot initiative restoring authority over annexation decisions for a proposed Buc-ee’s directly to voters by a rare landslide of 70%.

Jacob Fenton, president of Palmer Lake for the People, participated in those efforts alongside residents who believed major decisions affecting the community should involve direct public consent. As Fenton put it, “Sovereignty rests with the governed.”

The debate was vigorous on all sides. Advocacy groups formed to influence the outcome, including Protect Palmer Lake and Support Local Control — two nonprofit organizations created by Bob Gardner shortly before the Sept. 9, 2025 election. Campaign filings show Support Local Control funding advertising through Protect Palmer Lake while the donors behind Support Local Control remain undisclosed.The implications extended beyond town boundaries. Shawn Sawyer of Tri-Lakes Preservation expressed gratitude to Palmer Lake voters for protecting regional interests including water resources, wildlife corridors, property values, and public safety throughout the Tri-Lakes area. As Sawyer noted, recalls can serve as “an unfortunate, but sometimes necessary democratic safety valve if serious concerns arise.”

Gardner and Williams are correct about one point: recalls are serious and should not be undertaken lightly. But seriousness does not justify restricting them to criminal misconduct. Article XXI of the Colorado Constitution deliberately gives voters a broader remedy when they believe the relationship between citizens and their representatives has broken down.

Democratic accountability does not begin and end on Election Day. When voters exercise the recall power through the constitutional process, they are practicing representative government.

Jacob Fenton is president of Palmer Lake for the People and participated in the Palmer Lake Trustee recalls and related ballot initiative efforts. Timothy Lewin is a Colorado Springs neighborhood leader involved in the recall effort concerning Colorado Springs City Council member Tom Bailey. This column reflects input from community members and civic organizations including Integrity Matters, Westside Watch and Tri-Lakes Preservation.