Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

SPEAKOUT: Coffman wrong to give post short shrift

By Natalie Meyer

Published July 2, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

As a former Colorado secretary of state for 12 years, and one who now lives in the 1st Congressional District, I have been unusually silent about the 6th Congressional District Republican race for U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's seat.

However, after reading Mike Coffman's rationale for giving up the Colorado secretary of state office after only a few months into this term, I can no longer keep silent.

Republican Mike Coffman was narrowly elected in 2006 after a recount showed that he beat Democrat Ken Gordon by less that 2 percent. After just two months into his four-year term, Coffman publicly began pondering his next political office (Rocky Mountain News, Feb. 27, 2007).

Now those thoughts have turned into reality and he is running for Colorado's 6th Congressional District to succeed the retiring Tancredo.

Should Coffman win his congressional race and resign from his current position, Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter has the responsibility of choosing a replacement and will undoubtedly select a fellow Democrat.

In various forums on the campaign trail, Coffman has defended the decision to abandon his office on the grounds that:

* The secretary of state is merely an administrative office.

* The secretary of state is at the mercy of the governor and legislative majorities.

* The secretary of state is a nonpartisan position in which a member of either party would act similarly.

On the contrary, the secretary of state is the voters' watchdog to a fair democratic process and Coffman is wrong to thoughtlessly give up the office.

The secretary of state has the advantage of the bully pulpit. The secretary spends a lot of time in front of the legislature, advocating on behalf of the voters. This includes initiating bills to ensure fair elections, arguing against bad bills, or simply serving as an expert witness on the electoral process. Whenever the secretary speaks, legislators take the input seriously and the press reports it.

For that matter, the secretary issues press releases and holds town hall meetings to get input from citizens and ensure they are adequately informed.

The secretary of state is the chief elections officer in Colorado and has a lot of latitude and authority to protect the integrity of our democratic process. This includes interpreting and enforcing existing election law.

For example, Coffman recently declared the three Republican candidates in Jefferson County eligible to run for the legislature, despite an uproar among Democrats who claim that they missed a deadline and should not be allowed to run.

Another example is the one former Secretary of State Gigi Dennis made in 2006 when she interpreted election law to demand that "small-donor committees" get permission from their members before automatically deducting from members' paychecks. Democrats and labor unions sued to reverse her decision.

The secretary of state has a lot of discretion on the enforcement side, too. For example, if a candidate raises illegal amounts of money or raises it from illegal sources, there are consequences. The secretary of state can do anything from sending a harsh letter of admonishment to imposing substantial fines.

Finally, recounts. This is probably the most high-profile aspect of a secretary of state's duties. You don't have to look further than George W. Bush's presidential victory in Florida in 2000, Bob Beauprez's victory for Congress in Colorado in 2002 or even Coffman's own victory for secretary of state in 2006. As widely reported, Republicans and Democrats fought tooth and nail arguing for different legal standards in these close counts.

Coffman's assertions and timing are confusing (and frustrating to me personally as a former secretary of state). Did he not understand what he was getting into? Does he not understand his role now?

The secretary of state is one of only four constitutional offices in Colorado voted on in a statewide, partisan election. It is very consequential to the conduct and outcome of elections. And, for better or worse, the reality is that decisions made by the secretary of state often rile one party or the other. It is naive and historically inaccurate to claim otherwise.

Natalie Meyer served as Colorado secretary of state from 1983-1995.

Comments

  • July 2, 2008

    9:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Navy writes:

    "On the contrary, the secretary of state is the voters' watchdog to a fair democratic process and Coffman is wrong to thoughtlessly give up the office."

    Thoughtless? I think not. Who are you supporting for the 6th, Natalie?

    The Sec State's job IS administrative. Isn't that what enforcing rules and rulemaking is? Isn't that what imposing fines is, etc?

    Your partisanship is showing. Stay out of the race for the 6th.

  • July 2, 2008

    12:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Andy writes:

    At the very least, it makes Coffman appear ambitious, someone looking for power rather than someone looking to do a job. Don't know how the voters of the 6th will react. They're quite conservative.

  • July 30, 2008

    12:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    RandyD writes:

    I really appreciate what Natalie has to say here, I had these same concerns when the race for the 6th started, and I am frustrated by Coffman's selfish disregard for the good he could stay and do. You would have to be a Democrat to say that it doesn't matter who holds the SecState job, and a Democrat would only say it to help the cause of getting a Democrat into the job.

    I think the voters of the 6th will see through this, and the logical extension of his actions is that he will continue to be more interested in his own career than in helping the people of his state. There are usually - certainly in this case - a plurality of other excellent folks ready to go do the job.

    This could really backfire on him politically, because he loses some trust with a lot of us.