Colorado: Evie Hudak Resigns

T

Tom Servo

Staff
As you may remember, Colorado voters successfully recalled state senators Morse and Giron back in September (sad clown tears here). Their support for gun control was the main issue.

Despite outspending the NRA and local groups by a wide margin, Michael Bloomberg was unable to protect either of them. This whole situation proved that Bloomberg's money couldn't protect someone from angry voters. His promises (and threats) that gun control was a safe vote suddenly rang very hollow.

Following those recalls, Governor Hickenloper meekly asked gun control groups to stay out of Colorado.

After Morse and Giron, RKBA supporters set their sights on Evie Hudak, well known for mocking the concerns of a rape victim in the rush to pass gun legislation.

Rather than face a recall election, Hudak has voluntarily resigned. From her letter:

Most Coloradans believe that the convenience of high-capacity ammunition magazines is less important than saving lives in tragedies like Sandy Hook, Aurora and Columbine. That’s why I sponsored SB 13-197, a bill that takes guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. (…) By resigning, I am protecting these important new laws.
Click to expand...

Her resignation before the recall means her party can appoint an interim successor, rather than risking an election. As such, the Colorado Senate keeps its Democratic majority. However, the message is out, and gun control is no longer the safe bet politicians thought.
 
I'm glad she is gone. I corresponded with her several times before she introduced her bill, and received condescending responses.

The other lawmakers have been put on notice, most notably our governor. The next several elections will be quite interesting here in Colorado.
 
Now some of the local groups are going to consider a run at a 4th Senator.

While some are cheering, her resignation was clearly politically motivated in an attempt to keep control of the Senate and prevent the affected constituents from having their say as to who they want to represent us.

When I say "us" yes, I mean myself as I live in Hudak's district. I met with her and several other senators and I can truly say I am glad she is out, but I am not happy with her last move to skirt the will of her constituents.:mad:
 
I am confused by her statement(well,not really)If Most Coloradoans support her bill,why would she lack the courage to face the election?
 
I met with her and several other senators and I can truly say I am glad she is out, but I am not happy with her last move to skirt the will of her constituents
Click to expand...
It's still a win in a way.

In the whole post-Sandy Hook omgdosomethingforhtechildren rush to ram legislation through, Michael Bloomberg told politicians he'd make gun-control a safe vote. He even implied that was the only safe vote. He spent a ton of money protecting Giron and Morse, but it didn't work.

Now that we're seeing a successful backlash from voters, the word is going out that maybe it isn't such a safe vote after all. Hudak's resignation might be symbolic, but it will sink in with some legislators.

I do find this morbidly hilarious:

evie-hudak.jpg
 
Should be said : this Hudak must be quite the team player!

A politician resigning before there's even a recall election? Just so what? So her party appoints some other Dem...well, that Dem can be recalled, no? Is this interim appointment beyond the reach of recall?

If the voters are that riled up, even if the appointee is immune to recall, the Dems will lose next election, and her resignation is for naught, no?

I don't have the slightest clue about the many factors at play here, but this smells more than a bit...stretched.
 
By and large, people are fickle and have very short memories. The founders knew this, hence the reasoning behind the 2 year terms for the House of Representatives.

By this time next year, the furor will have largely died.

This was a political move that may well prove to be in the best interests of the (currently) leading party. I would like to be proven wrong, but I'm pessimistic.
 
There is a debate locally about what this actually means. Some believe the recall can still move forward, and thus the winner of such gets the seat. Others believe that the seat will be appointed. It might be a court issue, who knows.
 
If, in fact, her party can appoint her successor then he or she ought to be recalled as well just to make the point. Certainly those who would appoint her successor are just as much to blame for this boondoggle. Avoiding the wrath of the electorate, indeed contravening the will of the electorate to conduct a recall election is despicable.
 
maestro pistolero said:
If, in fact, her party can appoint her successor then he or she ought to be recalled as well just to make the point. Certainly those who would appoint her successor are just as much to blame for this boondoggle. Avoiding the wrath of the electorate, indeed contravening the will of the electorate to conduct a recall election is despicable.
Click to expand...

That was my thought as well. Anyway, it seems like the recall election really ought to be on the position, not the person.
 
From Article V, Section 2 of the Colorado State Constitution:

Section 2. Election of members � oath � vacancies. (1) A general election for members of the general assembly shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each even�numbered year, at such places in each county as now are or hereafter may be provided by law.

(2) Each member of the general assembly, before he enters upon his official duties, shall take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado and to faithfully perform the duties of his office according to the best of his ability. This oath or affirmation shall be administered in the chamber of the house to which the member has been elected.

(3) Any vacancy occurring in either house by death, resignation, or otherwise shall be filled in the manner prescribed by law. The person appointed to fill the vacancy shall be a member of the same political party, if any, as the person whose termination of membership in the general assembly created the vacancy.

[As amended November 5, 1974 � Effective upon proclamation of the Governor, December 20, 1974. (See Laws 1974, p. 447.)]
Click to expand...

It looks like recalls are provided for in an amendment to the constitution, in Article XXI:

Section 2. State Officers May Be Recalled.

Every elective public officer of the state of Colorado may be recalled from office at any time by the registered electors entitled to vote for a successor of such incumbent through the procedure and in the manner herein provided for, which procedure shall be known as the recall, and shall be in addition to and without excluding any other method of removal provided by law.

The procedure hereunder to effect the recall of an elective public officer shall be as follows:

A petition signed by registered electors entitled to vote for a successor of the incumbent sought to be recalled, equal in number to twenty*five percent of the entire vote cast at the last preceding election for all candidates for the position which the incumbent sought to be recalled occupies, demanding an election of the successor to the officer named in said petition, shall be filed in the office in which petitions for nominations to office held by the incumbent sought to be recalled are required to be filed; provided, if more than one person is required by law to be elected to fill the office of which the person sought to be recalled is an incumbent, then the said petition shall be signed by registered electors entitled to vote for a successor to the incumbent sought to be recalled equal in number to twenty*five percent of the entire vote cast at the last preceding general election for all candidates for the office, to which the incumbent sought to be recalled was elected as one of the officers thereof, said entire vote being divided by the number of all officers elected to such office, at the last preceding general election; and such petition shall contain a general statement, in not more than two hundred words, of the ground or grounds on which such recall is sought, which statement is intended for the information of the registered electors, and the registered electors shall be the sole and exclusive judges of the legality, reasonableness and sufficiency of such ground or grounds assigned for such recall, and said ground or grounds shall not be open to review.
Click to expand...
On the basis of the above, it seems clear (to this non-lawyer) that an appointed replacement would still be subject to a recall. There should be no question that the office is an elective office, and a person appointed to fill a vacancy is simply completing the unexpired elective term of the resignee. Thus, the appointed person becomes, upon swearing in, the incumbent. So he or she is an "elective officer," and the language of the constitution expressly says that "Every elective public officer of the state of Colorado may be recalled from office at any time by the registered electors entitled to vote for a successor of such incumbent ..."

But -- IANAL. My state doesn't even provide for recall elections, so this is new territory for me.
 
^^^^ Aguila, I agree fully with your interpretation of the CO Constitution, but to fully address the issues brought up in this thread, IMHO it's unclear whether a recall petition aimed at Evie Hudak would automatically carry over to her unknown successor.
 
From a political standpoint, I wonder if the impetus would be as strong to recall her successor. This recall is being driven by anger (and justifiably so), but it's harder to redirect that at someone who was just appointed and hasn't had a hand in any legislation.

It appears they could try to recall the appointee, but it may not get the votes. What then?
 
I agree with Tom. I don't think they should try to recall the successor; I don't think there's any way that would work because there's not much anger to direct that way, whereas there was plenty of anger to direct towards Hudak.

They're three-for-three with recalls now, I see no reason to mess up that record by getting too greedy. Sure, Hudak wasn't a technical victory but it sure was a moral one. And it added to the other two recalls and helped send a clear message throughout Colorado and nationwide.
 
Actually, the thing to watch out for is a drive to get rid of recalls. THAT will be the goal of anti-rights politicians, to keep their jobs safe.
 
The recall petition needs to go on and results turned in. It is possible for her to wait until the deadline to turn in the signatures passes, then rescend her resignation. Remember she is still in office until her successor is sworn in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top