Do you recall the first time you thought about the recall? If you are a Colorado voter, you have recently heard more about recall elections than you might want, given that our terrific governor, Jared Polis, has already been the subject of two different recall efforts. Both failed, of course; the most recent one did not even bother to turn in any signatures. They wanted Polis out because, apparently, he was doing the job he was elected to do. 

The folks behind such efforts want to undo the results of a free and fair election because the person who won is, well, governing in the manner he promised. In virtually every election, the winning side chides the losers with some form of the “elections have consequences” speech and the losers grouse about things and vow to do better next time. 

The origins of the concept of recalling elected officials are lost in the mists of political history. Early U.S. history shows the recall being codified into colonial law as early as 1631, and from the start it was a contentious issue. Few would argue that elected officials should never be recalled. An elected official who, say, argued that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” might not lose too many votes, but he could and should be recalled from office if he actually committed such a murder, right?

But it can also be argued that, short of actual criminal acts, the recall should be basically abolished. Frivolous recall efforts, such as the ones leveled at Polis, are an unnecessary and silly waste of time and effort. The bar for recalls should be quite high, and in my view, should be limited to actual felonious behavior. Otherwise, recalls become troublesome and costly for trivial reasons. This was a concern at our nation’s founding, with Alexander Hamilton worrying about proposed recall language aimed at possibly recalling U.S. senators, saying the recall “will render the senator a slave to all the capricious humors among the people.”

Which, of course, brings us to a trailer park in Woodland Park.

According to a very interesting Colorado Politics article, it seems that last April, the good people of Woodland Park – a gorgeous mountain town with a fun dinosaur museum for the kids – elected a relatively newly-arrived gentleman named Jim Pfaff to the City Council. Now politically, Mr. Pfaff and I agree on very little. We share a bit of a common past, in that we were both congressional staffers (he rose to chief of staff for a couple of Republican congressmen) and he also ran for the U.S. Congress. But beyond that, we likely have nothing much in common. 

That said, it would appear to this opinion writer that Pfaff is currently the subject of a poorly reasoned and inappropriate recall effort, based on the aforementioned trailer park. 

You see, to serve on the WP council, a person must have been a resident of that lovely town for 12 consecutive months prior to the election. Pfaff insists he met that requirement by renting a space in the park on April 1, 2019, just getting under the residency wire before the April 7 deadline to live there a year before the election. As proof, he sent in a picture of what appears to be a deposit check to the park dated April 1, 2019. That was deemed enough proof, and Pfaff went on to garner 1,067 votes, which was enough to put him on the council. But those running the recall seem to be claiming that Pfaff did not, in fact, get to the trailer park in time, and therefore was technically ineligible to be on the council.

The larger and far more important issue, though, appears to be the issue of whether Pfaff is or is not, well, a bit of a jerk.

The CP article notes that Pfaff has rubbed quite a few people the wrong way, with over-the-top political views that are extreme, even for a solidly GOP town like Woodland Park. Oh, and he apparently is rather rude and snooty in emails to, apparently, lots of people.

So, the key issue that underlies this recall effort appears to be Pfaff’s dislikeability and rudeness.  Fellow GOPers interviewed by CP reported largely agreeing with Pfaff on lots of issues, but that there is something about the guy that just rubs people the wrong way. And let me be clear – Pfaff’s ideas are the antithesis of what I believe, and I would strongly endorse a more reasonable candidate in an election against him. I would like to see him defeated, but at the ballot box and not by the efforts of offended colleagues on the pretense that Pfaff didn’t show up in town early enough.

We elect people to govern on our behalf. The Founders created a system wherein we can pass judgment on those we elect, and to fire them when they displease us. That system is called an election. The recall should be saved for those rare times when the criminal behavior of an elected compels an early removal from office. Elections have consequences, my friends, and those we elect should be able to serve out their terms and to then compete for reelection freely and openly.

Unless, of course, a candidate actually shoots someone on 5^th Avenue, but that’s for another column.