CARROLL: A Dem win, by default
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 14, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Democrats in Colorado won a major battle Tuesday without firing a shot: They took over a statewide office - or, more precisely, are now poised to take it over - that they have coveted for nearly half a century.
That's right. Republicans have had a lock on the secretary of state's office since 1963. They clung to it even through the lean Watergate years when other prizes were falling to the Democrats and new faces such as Gov. Richard Lamm and Sen. Gary Hart were making national news.
Throughout the decades, Democrats put up good candidates and bad for secretary of state. It didn't matter. Republicans beat every one.
Mike Coffman, the current occupant, withstood even the anti-Republican gales of 2006 to eke out victory over Democratic state Sen. Ken Gordon - although perhaps with an assist from Denver's polling debacle in which a number of voters abandoned long lines without casting a ballot.
Come late this year or early next, however, after Coffman is elected congressman in the heavily Republican 6th District where he won a primary Tuesday, he will turn over his office keys to a Democrat appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter.
Democrats couldn't take the office at the polls so Republicans in the 6th District, at Coffman's prompting, decided to give it to them.
Coffman told me Wednesday that his office "is not a political position. This is an administrative position. When you talk to clerks, Republican or Democrat, there is very little difference between them" on the issues.
No doubt he's right so far as their attitudes toward the nuts and bolts of holding elections. But as I seem to recall, there were many differences between Coffman and his Democratic opponent in the last election - on everything from voting registration requirements to the use of paper ballots, electronic machines and mail ballots. The two even had trouble agreeing on whether voters should have to show an ID at the polls. Gordon had resisted such a requirement, believe it or not, as a lawmaker.
Since 2000, in fact, voting machines as well as registration and voting requirements have become some of the hottest political controversies in America. And the parties simply do not see eye to eye on some of them.
Coffman would like Ritter to tap a present or former county clerk for the job so the next secretary of state won't require months of on-the-job education. It's a good idea. That's the pool from which Republican Gov. Bill Owens chose a secretary of state in 1999 after Vikki Buckley died. Owens selected Donetta Davidson, the Arapahoe County clerk and recorder.
Yet Ritter is under no obligation to choose someone who actually knows what they're doing, or who endorses the quaint belief, say, that ballot integrity is among the highest electoral priorities. And although I wouldn't expect it, he could even choose someone whose most compelling qualifications are an attractive resume and the ambition and political skills to use the job as a steppingstone to other major offices.
Whatever Ritter decides, it will mark the end of that office's extraordinary dominance by a single party.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Through Your Lens
Submit your photos or see the Editor's Choice slide show here.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
August 14, 2008
12:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
AmericanPatriot writes:
I have never understood why this particular office needs to be political. Why can't it just be another bureaucratic civil service position where solid experience and sound judgement are valued.
August 14, 2008
6:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
freethinker07 writes:
Because Democrats go trolling for votes among the marginally committed and the illegals. That's why they favor voter registration drives.
August 14, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Actually, Froward69,
To at least some of us conservatives, the system would revert back to its roots. We (even black people and other minorities) would vote for delegates, and the delegates make their own decisions about who to send to D.C. and who to cast their support toward during the race for the presidency.
You see, the masses are too susceptible to populism. They are too easy to sway with emotional arguments about redistribution of wealth, and they are prone to do what makes them feel good, rather than what is best for the country.
Put the trust in people who have only our republic's (consisting of fifty individual states) interest at heart. These people would be professional politicians, not the angry masses of more-or-less stupid people (including republicans and independants here along with Dems). They would be professional politicians, educated well to do their jobs. They would be America's best and brightest thinkers (similar to the days of our founding). And before you get your panties in a bunch, some of them would inevitably be Libs. (it's not that I think libs or unaffiliateds are stupid...the masses in general are, however)
August 14, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
AmericanPatriot writes:
All three of you are correct and that is my point, the position should be a professional position not a political position. The Secretary of State should be free from the influence of any political party. In my humble opinion, the right to vote and the right of free speech are the two most important rights that we have, and no political party should have undue influence over either.
August 14, 2008
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
I would add that our Justice System should also be above and beyond politics, but look what the Bush Administration and the echo chamber mouth peices have gotten away with. We now have proffessional career people in the system based exclusively on the political stripes, not their ability to do the job.
Justice and liberty based on what political party you belong to has the whole world laughing at us!
Heck of a job, W!
August 14, 2008
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
RainbowWarrior,
That knife cuts two ways. The more liberal appelate courts in this nation do a lot of progressing falsely in the name of the constitution, but to the purpose of "progress," as in leftward progress.
August 14, 2008
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
nice rationalization, spencer jr....we can always count on you stumping for the republicans.
we're back to the Simple Equation folks.
Do a good job...keep your position.
Do a poor job...suffer more nov06-style beatings.
This trend will continue until the conservatives start representing the will of the majority of americans.
August 14, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
jay, and what about the '94 beatings?
August 14, 2008
3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Anotherskeptic writes:
Mike Coffman defied the Bill Armstrong-controlled GOP establishment, and he won. Celebrate. Maybe Coffman has saved the Colorado GOP by putting the Armstrongs and GOP radicals in their place. And he'll be the state's best member of Congress.
August 14, 2008
3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
spencerr writes:
jay, and what about the '94 beatings
*******************************************
Oh, you mean the ones that were built upon divisive wedge issues (gay marriage, etc) and slinging mud at Bill Clinton at the tax payers expense?
Yeah..whatever came out of that "Contract on America"?
And I do mean "on"..cause it was never "with".
August 14, 2008
4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
that's just it, zivo....they have no choice.
they simply can't run on The Track Record or their policy stances on the major issues.
therefore in order to stay competitive they have to warm up the swiftboats and throw out the rhetoric about gays, gods and guns.