Colorado Springs voters elected Tom Bailey to the City Council just last year. Now he is stepping down—not because voters rejected him at the ballot box, but because a small group of activists refused to accept the outcome of that election and pursued a recall campaign to overturn it. 

This isn’t about one councilmember or one set of debates at City Hall.  

It’s about whether election results are respected and whether recalls remain the tool they were intended to be. 

Recalls serve an important purpose in a democracy. They exist as a safeguard for extraordinary circumstances—serious misconduct, corruption, or a clear breach of public trust. They were never intended to function as a routine political tool used by dissatisfied factions seeking a second chance after losing an election. 

Yet increasingly, that is how recalls are being used. 

When recall efforts are launched over issues that were already known to voters during the election, the question becomes larger than any one official or issue. It becomes a question about whether election outcomes are treated as final decisions or simply temporary results until the next organized effort attempts to overturn them. 

That question matters for more than politics. It matters for the long-term health and growth of our community. 

Cities function best when leadership is stable and governance is predictable. Businesses deciding where to invest, expand, and hire look for communities where local governance is stable, and that policy direction is not constantly thrown into upheaval. For communities competing for jobs and investment, that kind of predictability is not a luxury; it is a competitive advantage. 

When recalls become a routine tactic rather than a last-resort safeguard, the message it sends is troubling: that a determined minority can keep elections perpetually open until they achieve their preferred outcome. 

That is not a recipe for stable governance. 

It also carries a direct cost for taxpayers. Special elections are not free. They can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars—public dollars that could otherwise support roads, public safety, parks, or other essential services residents rely on every day. 

But the financial cost is only part of the problem. The deeper issue is the erosion of civic norms. 

If every controversial vote can trigger a recall campaign, governing becomes nearly impossible. Elected officials spend their time defending against perpetual political battles instead of doing the work voters elected them to do. The incentive shifts from making thoughtful decisions to avoiding any action that might provoke the next recall effort. 

That dynamic makes it harder to recruit serious, capable people to run for office—especially for roles like City Council, which comes with only a small stipend, but often requires nearly a full-time commitment, along with responsibility for decisions on growth, infrastructure, housing, and economic development that shape the future of the community. 

Colorado Springs has built its economic momentum through collaboration between residents, business leaders and elected officials willing to tackle complex issues and plan for the city’s future. That progress depends on a civic environment where leaders can focus on solving problems and planning for growth, not constantly navigating political resets.  

Disagreements are inevitable in any healthy community. Residents should absolutely organize, advocate and hold their elected officials accountable. 

But the ultimate mechanism for settling those disagreements has always been the ballot box. 

If voters decide they want different leadership, they will have that opportunity in the next election—as they always do. 

What we should resist is the normalization of a system where election results remain perpetually open to reversal whenever policy disagreements arise.  

Because once recalls become routine political do-overs rather than a remedy for genuine wrongdoing, the stability of local governance begins to erode. 

Colorado Springs deserves a political culture where elections matter, outcomes are respected, and leaders are given the space to govern until the next regularly scheduled election. That stability isn’t just good for democracy. It is essential for the continued growth, investment, and economic momentum our community depends on. 

Johnna Reeder Kleymeyer is President & CEO of the Colorado Springs Chamber & Economic Development Corporation. Jeff Thormodsgaard is Vice President of Government Affairs of the Colorado Springs Chamber & Economic Development Corporation.