The last time Colorado’s boundlessly ambitious secretary of state wanted someone else to pay for a private security detail, she was turned down. That was in September, when the state’s Independent Ethics Commission concluded that Jena Griswold’s bid to have a national organization cover the cost of her enhanced security, following some threatening texts and social media posts, would violate state ethics rules for public officials.

Seemingly undeterred, she now is trying to get the legislature to pick up the tab. It ought to turn her down, as well.

As reported last week by our news affiliate Colorado Politics, Griswold and the Colorado Department of State are seeking an additional appropriation of $120,800 in the current state budget, “…for the Department to contract for private security and threat monitoring services in response to an increase in threats towards Department personnel.”

When she took her request to the ethics commission last year, one issue that raised eyebrows of commission members was that the extra security could wind up working for Griswold not only in her official capacity but also during her numerous political appearances. Griswold has mastered the art of the perpetual campaign – ask anyone on the “send” list for her incessant fund-raising appeals – and her security team could end up serving her political ends.

More to the point, though, many elected officeholders receive threats. It’s disturbing, of course, and has no place in civil society or our democratic political culture. But it’s an unfortunate reality of holding office, and there already are procedures in place for dealing with it.

Griswold’s office should report threats to the Colorado State Patrol for investigation, as House Minority Leader Hugh McKean pointed out in House debate over the bill last week. If there is a credible threat, our eminently capable State Patrol likely will get to the bottom of it.

For any threats considered serious, the State Patrol will provide additional security. As we noted here last fall when Griswold approached the ethics commission, the State Patrol did not find the threats against her to be serious at that time. That should have offered her reassurance she could take a deep breath and refocus on her duties. She also should feel reassured that state lawmakers last year passed a bill turning credible threats against elected officials into a class 6 felony.

As we’ve also noted before, Griswold is a novice in public office in her first term as secretary of state. Perhaps she wasn’t prepared for the ugly side of vox populi.

Griswold’s request for extra cash already has been approved by the House and is now making its way through the Senate. With her own party in control of both chambers, it’s a safe bet her ask will be OK’d by senators, as well. Alas.

Griswold and all other state elected officials deserve a safe working environment free from intimidation. Certainly, let’s all hope for their safety. Sadly, there are disturbed people out there, and their threats against public officials, however unlikely to be carried out in most cases, must be taken seriously and investigated.

And that’s how they already are handled – which seems to serve other Colorado public officials well enough.

Denver Gazette editorial board