Colorado state senators recalled over gun control support

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

Two Democratic lawmakers in Colorado, including the president of the state senate, were recalled Tuesday in elections brought about by their support for tougher gun control laws.

With 94 percent of the projected vote counted, voters in Colorado Springs favored recalling state Sen. John Morse, the body's president, by 51 percent to 49 percent. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, state Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo was defeated in her recall election, 56 percent to 44 percent.

"We as the Democratic party will continue to fight," Morse told supporters in Colorado Springs as he conceded the race. Republican Bernie Herpin, a former Colorado Springs city councilman, will replace him. Giron will be replaced by Republican George Rivera, a former deputy police chief in Pueblo.

The votes marked the first time in Colorado history that a state lawmaker faced a recall effort and the biggest backlash in states that passed tougher gun-control laws following two mass shootings last year – at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater and a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.

Democratic-leaning Connecticut, Maryland, and New York also passed tougher gun laws without a recall effort making a state ballot.

The states’ effort came after President Obama’s unsuccessful attempt to get Congress to pass stricter federal laws – including tighter background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity gun magazines.

In Colorado Springs, the majority of registered voters are Democrats, but many are conservative-leaning. 23 percent of them, in fact, signed the petition to recall Morse, according to The Denver Post.

The National Rifle Association and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg lined up on opposite sides of the recall effort, led by gun-rights advocates upset over the legislation and how the hearings were conducted.

Both state legislators voted for 15-round limits on ammunition magazines and for expanded background checks on private gun sales.

The legislation passed Colorado's Democrat-led legislature without any Republican support and was signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who had initially rejected calls for stronger gun control laws.

Morse, a former police chief in suburban Colorado Springs, said Colorado's gun laws were commonsense ideas to reduce fatalities in mass shootings. He was first elected to the Colorado Senate in 2006.

Reported contributions to Morse and Giron totaled about $3 million, dwarfing the reported amount raised by gun activists who petitioned for the recall, though some independent groups didn't have to report spending. Both the NRA and Bloomberg contributed more than $300,000 to the pro- and anti-recall campaigns.

In addition, dozens of elected county sheriffs have sued to block the gun laws.

One of the Morse recall organizers, Timothy Knight, said supporters are upset that lawmakers limited debate on the gun legislation and seemed more inclined to take cues from the White House than their constituents.

"If the people had been listened to, these recalls wouldn't be happening," Knight said.

I don't feel sad or elated. Don't feel sorry at all for the recall politicians. I doubt though that MD, Conn, and NY will go through a recall vote being the general pop are democrats.

**Kilkrazy**

What is a recall?

**LordofHats**

Kilkrazy wrote:
What is a recall?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election

**Spartak**

I'm not a rep or a dem but I am a 2nd amendment advocate so I'm pretty pleased with this. Hopefully they will get the new law overturned before I move back to Denver.

**Jimsolo**

A special election to remove an elected official. It generally requires enough voters signing a petition to get the election called, which is basically just another election. (Which means that the politician might still retain their position.) Not all states allow them, and those that do sometimes place restrictions on them.

As a matter of personal feeling, if a congressional official is getting recalled, then they may well need it. If enough of their constituents feel that their interests aren't being represented by the official's vote, then the official is failing at his essential job function. When used against executive officials, (mayors, governors) I'm a little more hesitant. The job of an executive member of the government is to make command decisions, and they are empowered with the authority to make those decisions even if they aren't popular. (That's why it's so important to choose wisely when electing them.) There have been a number of times when presidents, mayors, or governors took executive action even though it was not the clearly preferred course, and it has proven to be the correct course of action. I don't feel that it's okay to remove those officials via recall except in the case of corruption, malfeasance, or extreme incompetence.

That being said, we love us some dirty politics in congress, so I also wouldn't be surprised to see a Republican-funded base for this effort to remove these gentleman. I don't know which way that Colorado, or specifically their districts, tend to vote politically, but the close election results raise my eyebrow. It's entirely possible that this is just the system working exactly as intended, but it's entirely possible that the congressional representatives are playing silly buggers in Colorado. Either way, it's Colorado state politics, and as an Illinois resident, is none of my concern. (That's not callousness, by the way,

it's me treating people as I wish to be treated. )

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
What is a recall?

LordofHats wiki link is accurate, but it lays them out as if they're a really common thing: they totally aren't. Recalls in the US at the state and higher levels are actually pretty damn rare and in fact, in many venues, it's impossible to initiate one before a elected official has x amount of time in office, and in others, it's simply not provided for at all, ever. US Senators, Congressmen, the President, and the Supreme Court justices are all not subject to recall; although all can be impeached and then subsequently (possibly) removed: something even rarer.

Anyway - I have seen several articles on this. I'm not familiar with CO politics, so why are are we so sure it was based solely on gun rights? How popular was this guy on other things? I'm just asking for clarification, not doubting it's possible, as gun rights cross the partisan divide pretty strongly in my experience.

**MrMoustaffa**

Isn't this the first successful one in a long time?

I'm really surprised they pulled this off. I remember seeing the news that the vote was today and thinking "well, that's a pipe dream."

Good job for them. Let's hope the new politicians aren't complete idiots.

I'd also hope this wasn't purely based on gun rights. I'm pretty sure this has been a building issue. Remember how part of Northern Colorado was wanting to secede a while back? This is probably linked to that, in that the rural Republican base is not happy with the Democrat backed urban areas.

Although I seriously wonder if most "anti guns" (which, to be honest, will mostly 'liberal' dems) even knew about the vote. Similar to how the AWB ban failed, I wonder if this was a case where the pro recall people all showed up to vote, while the vast majority of anti recall people didnt care enough to show or thought "eh, it'll never pass".

**Spartak**

The recall was a direct result of these two state legislators supporting gun control measures that were very controversial in the state of Colorado. John Morse president of Colorado's state senate (formerly) probably didn't do himself any favors when he went on TV just prior to the vote and basically said he knew his constituents did not support the bill but didn't care and would vote for it anyway. That pissed off a LOT of people, many of whom had voted for him in the previous election. Regardless of your political leanings I think this kind of thing needs to happen a lot more often at the local/state level, maybe these politicians will start to wake up and realize they represent us not their own personal interests.

Also the vote (at least for Morse) was very close 51/49, there was pretty good turnout from both sides. Its not as partisan an issue in CO as it is in some of the other states. The Northern CO sucession thing is still going on, and has actually gathered more steam than I expected.

*update* Aparently Angela Giron's recall vote was not nearly as close as Morses. She lost 56/43.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/354623/339/Sen-John-Morse-trails-in-recall-election?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cbc%7Clarge

**Ouze**

Spartak wrote:
John Morse president of Colorado's state senate (formerly) probably didn't do himself any favors when he went on TV just prior to the vote and basically said he knew his constituents did not support the bill but didn't care and would vote for it anyway.

That goes down right next to “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?” in my book.

**Kilkrazy**

The job of elected officials in a representative democracy is to consider the interests of all the people, not just the ones who voted for them.

That can lead to situations where they vote for something that apparently goes against the wishes of the majority. You get the chance to re-elect them or not as the electoral cycle advances to the next phase. The idea of the recall seem to anticipate that, which may or may not be a good thing.

I do think that single issue politics is largely unworkable as a means for governing the complexities of modern society, so I hope the recall is more broadly based than just having 15 or 16 bullets in your clips.

**Jimsolo**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The job of elected officials in a representative democracy is to consider the interests of all the people, not just the ones who voted for them.

Hmmm. That is an interesting take on it, although not one I've ever seen taught. The whole point, as I've always seen it taught, of electing officials by districts is so that they can represent the interests of their specific district, since those interests might vary wildly, especially across large (geographically) countries. When you go against the wishes of your district, it seems fair that they should be able to remove you. Again, there's always the possibility of collusion and conspiracy behind the scenes, but it seems like this is one that the two officials in question saw coming. I don't know the political landscape in Colorado very well, so I can't speak to their competency or how likely the politicians there are to orchestrate some kind of back-room skulduggery, but it doesn't seem like that's what's going on here.

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Isn't this the first successful one in a long time?

I'm really surprised they pulled this off. I remember seeing the news that the vote was today and thinking "well, that's a pipe dream."

There's been a few. Check out the wikipedia article linked up above for a list. The last movement I was aware of was when Illinois decided we needed to give ourselves the option to recall our own officials (after the complete farce that was the Blagojevich scandal). But nationally, there's been a few, some big, some small.

Although I seriously wonder if most "anti guns" (which, to be honest, will mostly 'liberal' dems) even knew about the vote. Similar to how the AWB ban failed, I wonder if this was a case where the pro recall people all showed up to vote, while the vast majority of anti recall people didnt care enough to show or thought "eh, it'll never pass".

That seems unlikely. From what I've seen, recall elections are a big deal, at least in the areas they are affecting. Still, as I said I don't know Colorado, so it's possible.

**Kilkrazy**

Jimsolo wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The job of elected officials in a representative democracy is to consider the interests of all the people, not just the ones who voted for them.

Hmmm. That is an interesting take on it, although not one I've ever seen taught. The whole point, as I've always seen it taught, of electing officials by districts is so that they can represent the interests of their specific district, since those interests might vary wildly, especially across large (geographically) countries. When you go against the wishes of your district, it seems fair that they should be able to remove you. Again, there's always the possibility of collusion and conspiracy behind the scenes, but it seems like this is one that the two officials in question saw coming. I don't know the political landscape in Colorado very well, so I can't speak to their competency or how likely the politicians there are to orchestrate some kind of back-room skulduggery, but it doesn't seem like that's what's going on here.

The danger of "The tyranny of the majority" is a standard element of democratic thought.

**d-usa**

Single issue politics and the two party system also pretty much guarantees that you will be fethed by your politicians on a semi-regular basis unless you are a hard line conservative of liberal.

Who is the pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-imigration guy supposed to vote for? Either candidate will vote for and against his issues.

**loki old fart**

Spartak wrote:
Regardless of your political leanings I think this kind of thing needs to happen a lot more often
maybe these politicians will start to wake up and realize they represent us not their own personal interests.

Agreed, and not just in America.

Governments should be scared of the people, not the other way around.

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
Single issue politics and the two party system also pretty much guarantees that you will be fethed by your politicians on a semi-regular basis unless you are a hard line conservative of liberal.

Who is the pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-imigration guy supposed to vote for? Either candidate will vote for and against his issues.

That's why you accept the "lesser of two evils". If you listen to the hard-line conservative/liberal you'll hear just as much whining about how the candidates never represent what they want either.

Just find what you align with the most, and let it be. That's how I do it.

**loki old fart**

Kilkrazy wrote:

The danger of "The tyranny of the majority" is a standard element of democratic thought.

You alienate one group today over one issue, and another group tomorrow over something else.
Soon you've alienated everybody. ( The water margin)

Edited for better video

**CptJake**

Great news. Politicians should never be comfortable they will retain their office. Between recalls like this and voting incumbents out of office when they don't vote in your interests the people need to make sure politicians know who they work for and don't take their power and re-elections for granted.

When an arrogant schmuck decides to vote against the wish of his/her constituents, they need to pay.

**Frazzled**

VICTORY IS LIFE!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Taje our rights and you lose your jobs you

!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
The job of elected officials in a representative democracy is to consider the interests of all the people, not just the ones who voted for them.

That can lead to situations where they vote for something that apparently goes against the wishes of the majority. You get the chance to re-elect them or not as the electoral cycle advances to the next phase. The idea of the recall seem to anticipate that, which may or may not be a good thing.

I do think that single issue politics is largely unworkable as a means for governing the complexities of modern society, so I hope the recall is more broadly based than just having 15 or 16 bullets in your clips.

No, the only ones that count are the ones that vote.

**Kilkrazy**

loki old fart wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

The danger of "The tyranny of the majority" is a standard element of democratic thought.

You alienate one group today over one issue, and another group tomorrow over something else.
Soon you've alienated everybody. ( The water margin)

Edited for better video

That is why the spirit of democracy is compromise.

**KalashnikovMarine**

That's a win in my book. (Having met Morse, the man in an incredible prick in general)

**Easy E**

I'm shocked Colorado Springs EVER had a Democrat representing it.

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
I'm shocked Colorado Springs EVER had a Democrat representing it.

I'm not...

There's a ton of Californian transplant living in the whole state. Also, Denver and the Boulder region tends to be very Blue.

**Frazzled**

Very much so. California expats have been compared to a plague of locusts, spreading forth to darken innocent states all around.

EDIT: Democrats are saying the NRA somehow committed voter suppression. Must have been all those NRA stormtroopers stopping people from voting, and holding up all the Bloomberg PAC money at the border.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/other-races/321567-top-dem-blames-colorado-defeats-on-voter-suppression-pure-and-simple

**ironicsilence**

Without making a statement on the gun control laws, I very much support more recalls of elected officials. They might start voting the way there constituents want them to if they have to worry about losing there job.

**easysauce**

While both sides campaigned vigorously, knocking on doors, holding rallies and driving voters to the polls, gun-control advocates far outspent their opponents. A range of philanthropists, liberal political groups, unions and activists raised a total of $3 million to defend Mr. Morse and Ms. Giron. Mr. Bloomberg personally gave $350,000.

so well funded, vocal minority, is beaten by popular grassroots movement.

sounds right, good on the people who exercised their right to vote out those who would erode their constitution/human rights.

wonder how long it will take the "vocal" (read hand wringing, shreiking, ill informed, super afraid, usful idiots for eroding the rights of others) minority to start complaining about how 95% of peopel support tougher gun laws and that they were somehow cheated by the EVIL GUN OWNERS

**Spacemanvic**

Easy E wrote:
I'm shocked Colorado Springs EVER had a Democrat representing it.

They've had a steady influx of Commiefornians for the last 20+ years. Like locust, they go from state to state spreading their liberal stupidity.

**Easy E**

Spacemanvic wrote:
Easy E wrote:
I'm shocked Colorado Springs EVER had a Democrat representing it.

They've had a steady influx of Commiefornians for the last 20+ years. Like locust, they go from state to state spreading their liberal stupidity.

Huh, I feel the same way about Texans.

**Frazzled**

Careful, don't make us conquer you.

**Seaward**

Outstanding news. Anything that's a stick in the eye of Bloomberg is always aces in my book.

**LordofHats**

Ouze wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
What is a recall?

LordofHats wiki link is accurate, but it lays them out as if they're a really common thing: they totally aren't. Recalls in the US at the state and higher levels are actually pretty damn rare and in fact, in many venues, it's impossible to initiate one before a elected official has x amount of time in office, and in others, it's simply not provided for at all, ever. US Senators, Congressmen, the President, and the Supreme Court justices are all not subject to recall; although all can be impeached and then subsequently (possibly) removed: something even rarer.

The wiki article is also a global perspective which I totally missed XD. Recalling in the US is indeed quite rare, and if I remember correctly, don't only a select few states even allow recalls or am I confusing it with referendum?