The late speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tip O’Neill, once famously proclaimed that “all politics is local politics.” His meaning, at least as I take it, is that every issue ultimately comes down to the local level when it comes to elected officials. Simply put, the folks that actually elected you demand, as they should, your attention. There are examples from all around the political spectrum of elected folks who forgot that lesson and ended up losing their bid to continue in office. As it was colorfully put some years ago, senators tend to only leave the Senate feet first or hanging their heads in sorrow after losing an election.

The lesson is equally apt for people at all levels of government: federal, state, and local. But a new “norm” seems to be settling into Colorado politics these days, the idea of undoing the will of the people by recalling elected officials nearly the moment they start their terms in office. We saw that with the folks who are so intent on recalling Gov. Polis that they actually had to wait to file their petitions until six months had passed since his election. In other words, they sought to undo an election immediately after said election concluded. 

The very same people who yelled at me that elections have consequences, when speaking of Trump and demanding that I respect the will of the people in electing him, now seem intent on engaging in the blatant hypocrisy of trying to recall state Sen. Pete Lee.  Pete, an old friend of mine from my own campaign in 2008, is now the target of the same anti-Polis folks, it is reported, that are going after the Governor. 

It’s clearly the legal right of any Coloradan to start a recall effort, but traditionally such “election-undoing” actions take place following a major mistake, such as a DUI arrest, or worse. But today, we in the Centennial State seem to have accepted as “normal” that if my candidate wins, great, and we should respect the outcome of elections. But if your candidate wins, well, six months later I’m circulating petitions to try to undo the election and the will of the people contained therein.

Now, I’m far from unbiased, in that I consider Pete Lee both an old friend and a truly dedicated public servant. That said, however, my old political science professor hat still (mostly) fits, and I find myself troubled by the hypocrisy of asserting that the will of the people means so little to those behind the recall.

To use a federal-level example, the Founders gave different terms in office to senators and House members for a very important and specific reason – to hold elected officials accountable while also making it possible for them to do what is in the best interest of the country, even if that clashes with a particular local political passion. House members, with a two-year term, are the closest to the people, and must therefore be the most connected to the will of the people. Senators, on the other hand, are given 6 years in office so that they are ultimately responsible to the people, but they have enough of an “election cushion” that they can make important decisions for their nation and state that might be momentarily unpopular but are ultimately in our best interests. Here in Colorado, we do a version of the federal plan, with House Members serving two-year terms, and Senators getting four years per election.

If the radical right that seeks to recall Pete Lee is successful, they might be momentarily happy. But I suspect that what comes around goes around, and I worry that we are starting down a slippery slope of filing recall petitions against our political opponents the moment such petitions become legal. A system of “permanent recalls” is not in our interests, though it may make some people happy for a brief time period.

When I ran for Congress here back in ’08, I argued passionately for what I thought was the best path forward for Colorado and our nation. The voters disagreed, and I was shellacked in the election by 20+ points. Never once, in the days, weeks, and months, following my defeat, did itever occur to me to try to undo my loss though a recall of Mr. Lamborn. He won the election, the people chose him over me by a wide margin (sniff…sob) and, as I believed then and believe now, elections have consequences. 

Our state is best served when both sides of the election embrace the results of representative democracy. Perhaps we’ll get there one day, but clearly today is not that day.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.