Still a Great Victory for Colorado Gun Owners

Despite the fact that it appears Evie Hudak is going to preemptively resign in order to preserve Democratic control over the Senate, her resignation is still a significant victory for Colorado gun owners. She would still have her seat had the pressure not been applied. No politician wants to be faced with the loss of a seat, and I view her preemptive resignation as an act of desperation on the part of Colorado Democrats. It is indeed time to focus on 2014. If Colorado gun owners truly seek repeal, the current Democratic leadership, who gladly sold the state to the interests of the Obama Administration and the Mayor of New York City, has to be replaced.

At the very least, now having three heads makes it unlikely Colorado Democrats will seek to embrace more gun control for the foreseeable future. Hickenlooper would be a choice prize himself. I don’t know how possible that is, but unfortunately the Colorado GOP has a habit of backing lackluster candidates.

16 thoughts on “Still a Great Victory for Colorado Gun Owners”

  1. The problem is indeed that Colorado GOP has been nominating poor candidates. Hickenlooper had been maintaining an image of non-partisan, nice guy until this year when it went crashing down on him – the gun control issue was one thing that broke the teflon coating, his incompetent handling of a death penalty clemency case the other.

  2. This does affect the calculus of Party rank and file.

    Because this is proof that the Party will not protect them if they vote for gun control. The Party will force them to resign… for the good of the Party.

    While I’m sure Hudak will get a nice “compensation” for falling on her sword, she still had to give up her seat.

    1. Yep. Politicians first and foremost want their seat. Sure, they want to help the party, but they want their seat most of all. Losing that is not good. Gun Control is dead in Colorado.

      1. “Politicians first and foremost want their seat.”

        While that is a useful rule of thumb to operate with, I’m not convinced it is always true. Jim Greenwood (R-8) here in Bucks County arguably surrendered his seat when he got a really sweet offer from a lobbying firm, and was never seen nor heard from again.

        In this Colorado situation, I think the analysis can be reduced to, that gun control votes caused some serious shakeups, and that will be remembered, and that alone is good. But much of the rest of the analysis, regarding voter perceptions, is based on the premise that voters care more about political nuances and maneuvers than they actually do. Only political junkies know and care about those things. Our job is to make sure the gun issue is remembered, not the political maneuvering that resulted. (Of course reminding the political class won’t hurt.)

  3. Looks like a weakness in the recall laws. The situation should be that if a recall is filed, any resignation between that point and the actual recall election must be filled by the recall election, not the normal appointment process.

    What are the hidden flaws in my proposal?

    1. That’s why she preemptively resigned. Had she resigned once it was filed, I believe it would be the case that the scheduled election would be the one that filled the seat. I think that would be the case, but I’m not certain.

      1. Actually, no. Colorado recall law allows the target of the recall to resign within a very short window after the filing of the petition signatures, with the party appointing a replacement – voiding the recall election.

        Its a quirky law.

  4. Even with a Democratic majority, don’t you think an effort to overturn the laws would pass? I figure there have got to be enough borderline candidates. Of course, the leadership could block it.

    1. I would think there would be, yes. But I also don’t know how the rules work for the Colorado Senate, to know how much control leadership has over what bills ever get a vote.

      1. Colorado houses are generally straight majority votes, but leadership can bury a bill in whatever committee they want to (or push it to a committee they know will be favorable to it). They can also hold votes based on that day’s membership, etc.

        A big thing with Hudak is that she was NOT up for reelection in 2014. So I believe by replacing her her replacement holds the office until the end of her term, which means this seat remains Democrat through another election cycle (not sure on that, and not sure if a replacement via special election would have had to run again in 2014).

        The problem is even if we turn both houses we also have to kick out Hickenlooper, and he’s problematic in a statewide election. I think he’s supported these bills too much not to veto an overturn attempt.

        I think there are some reasonable Republicans running, but whether one of them will make it to the final election and win is another story. The field is damn weak, and some of the ones I like probably have too much baggage to take the office.

        We’ll see.

        If Colorado goes blue again in 2014 this state is done — chalk us up to be another California in a decade or so.

        1. Its not clear. I thought that her replacement served out her full term because she resigned before the recall was certified.

          But I’m seeing reports that the Colorado Secretary of State Gessler is saying the contrary, that her replacement will serve only through the November 2014 election.

      2. Just found this.

        “‘I don’t see any more floor debate needed on the gun laws we passed,’ said Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, when asked if Democrats would send repeal legislation to so-called “kill committees” where they would be stopped from making it to a floor debate.”

        I’ll take that as a ‘yes’

    1. Hudak wasn’t up until 2016. The appointee will be up in 2014, if I understand Colorado law correctly. So the recall for the appointee will be, effectively, the 2014 general election.

  5. “…the Colorado GOP has a habit of backing lackluster candidates.”

    It seems to me that this is a general problem with the GOP as a whole, not just the CO branch thereof.

    I mean, really: McCain? Romney? Corbett?

Comments are closed.