Colorado: Evie Hudak Resigns

carguychris said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good point. My guess would be that the petition process will have to start over when the successor has been named and empaneled.
 
This isn't necessarily a win, but does send a powerful message about consequences of her behavior.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it a very good idea, as mentioned, to continue with the recall process just to be sure she leaves office. If it were to be dropped before she is officially out she could might change her mind and say her constituents begged her not to go or some other stupid excuse.
 
TLeo said:
I think it a very good idea, as mentioned, to continue with the recall process just to be sure she leaves office. If it were to be dropped before she is officially out she could might change her mind...
Click to expand...
I don't believe that the CO Constitution allows for this. The only place it addresses the withdrawal of a recall election is here:
Article XXI said:
...All petitions shall be deemed and held to be sufficient if they appear to be signed by the requisite number of signers, and such signers shall be deemed and held to be registered electors, unless a protest in writing under oath shall be filed in the office in which such petition has been filed, by some registered elector, within fifteen days after such petition is filed, setting forth specifically the grounds of such protest, whereupon the officer with whom such petition is filed shall forthwith mail a copy of such protest to the person or persons named in such petition as representing the signers thereof, together with a notice fixing a time for hearing such protest not less than five nor more than ten days after such notice is mailed. All hearings shall be before the officer with whom such protest is filed, and all testimony shall be under oath. Such hearings shall be summary and not subject to delay, and must be concluded within thirty days after such petition is filed, and the result thereof shall be forthwith certified to the person or persons representing the signers of such petition. In case the petition is not sufficient it may be withdrawn by the person or a majority of the persons representing the signers of such petition, and may, within fifteen days thereafter, be amended and refiled as an original petition. The finding as to the sufficiency of any petition may be reviewed by any state court of general jurisdiction in the county in which such petition is filed, upon application of the person or a majority of the persons representing the signers of such petition, but such review shall be had and determined forthwith. The sufficiency, or the determination of the sufficiency, of the petition referred to in this section shall not be held, or construed, to refer to the ground or grounds assigned in such petition for the recall of the incumbent sought to be recalled from office thereby.

When such petition is sufficient, the officer with whom such recall petition was filed, shall forthwith submit said petition, together with a certificate of its sufficiency to the governor, who shall thereupon order and fix the date for holding the election...
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

In short... In order to stop a CO recall election after the signed petition has been submitted, a constituent of the politician being recalled ("registered elector") must file a specific written protest, and the petition must be found "not sufficient" after a public hearing. If this happens, one of three things may occur: (1) the sponsors have the option of withdrawing it, (2) the Secretary implicitly has the option of not submitting it to the Governor, or (3) the Governor implicitly has a choice not to call the election. The key is this: the petition must first be found not sufficient.

As I read it, if the petition is certified sufficient, it automatically proceeds; neither the sponsors, the Secretary of State, nor the Governor have the power to call it off. IOW proverbially it moves forward under its own power unless the officeholder dies or voluntarily leaves office before the election, as we've seen here.

Interestingly, the last sentence of the first paragraph- as I read it- says that the finding may NOT be based on the merits, or lack thereof, of the sponsors' stated grounds for issuing the recall petition. IOW a CO recall petition is entirely political- the officeholder may be recalled for any reason.
 
Last edited:
Let it continue. If nothing else, it will deprive Hudak of the opportunity to evade the humiliation of voter regurgitation, and emphasize, for posterity, the consequences of disregarding the wishes of the electorate.
 
Keep it moving!

Keep the recall effort moving, if even permitted on the appointee. The new person will be from the same party so it is "reasonable to assume", if anything these days is reasonable anymore, that they will vote the same way so as to not upset their party lines on future issues. People are really paying attention and even if the voter outrage has waned because "this new appointee had nothing to do with the vote", this person represents the same ideals and should thus fore be dealt with accordingly. Even if it fails, the fact that people were still willing to go forward will still send the same message to all incumbents-BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID OF NOT LISTENING TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS. Now, if we could get that to carry on to DC!
 
IMHO (not living in Colorado and thus not having a dog in this fight), it is worth recalling the replacement as soon as he/she is named, irrespective of how gun-friendly he or she may be. The CO state constitution requires that a replacement be named from the same party as the resignee, so there's no question about that. By recalling the successor and electing a replacement from the opposite party, the message is stronger that political games don't cut it and don't fool the voters, and that a party as a whole can and will be held accountable for the actions of its members.

The Democrats (and the Republicans, for that matter) need to be shown as forcefully as possible that when a party ignores the wishes of a majority of the citizens, the party will have to pay the price. Not just the sacrificial Judas goat.
 
Aguila,

You are certainly on to something here. This replacement should be shown the gate just to demonstrate the people are sovereign, and this politician's slimy dodge to avoid accountability will not work. On a practical level, I doubt popular anger will transfer to the appointee. But it would be a great thing if Coloradans could pull it off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top