All Church and No State...

As many of you know, the town of Estes Park is holding a recall election tonight to see if one of their town trustees, David Habecker, will hold on to his seat.

How did we get here? It all started when one of the other town trustees, Lori Jeffrey-Clark, succeeded in getting the other town trustees to open their regular meetings with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Update below, with tonight's results.

The Pledge, if you recall, contains the phrase, "one nation, under God, indivisible". Many folks find that phrase offensive, since it seems to endorse the notion that our nation endorses officially the worship of God. Historically, the phrase hasn't been a part of the Pledge; it was added in 1954 during our last wave of anti-communist fervor.

Among those folks, it turns out, is Dave Habecker. The trustees started reciting the Pledge in May of last year. For a while, Habecker quelled his discomfort with the whole ceremony. But in September, he finally decided he'd had enough. He chose to sit, instead of standing and reciting a Pledge that he couldn't fully endorse. And that's what he's done ever since: he's been sitting quietly, perhaps pondering the official business before him and the other trustees, while his colleagues continue to stand and recite the Pledge.

Apparently, the seeming quiet act of sitting while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance was far, far too incendiary for Norm Pritchard, a resident of the town. Pritchard managed to get 246 of his fellow citizens to sign on to the petition asking for a recall. And just like that, we now have a recall election, where folks will decide if sitting during the Pledge is a violation so heinous that no one who does it can hold office, or if it's one of those things that folks can just shrug, say "There he goes again," and move on with their lives.

"In America, we were never to be subjected to a religious test for public office, but this does just that," he said. Habecker adds, "Most people, I think, will say they are not a big fan of my politics, but are tolerant enough that they will vote to keep me."

UPDATE:  Habecker was recalled.

Apparently, the good residents of Estes Park were not as tolerant as Habecker thought them to be. By a margin of 903 to 605, they voted to recall Habecker. They also elected his replacement on the town trustee board, Richard Homeier. Homeier beat three other candidates, John Ericson, Garry Bloom, and Dorothea Sloan for the vacant seat. Homeier received 466 votes, Ericson 337 votes, Sloan 249 votes, and Bloom brought up the rear with 190 votes.

Special thanks to Josh Narins for background information.

Comments

[RedHawk]

Those "good residents" obviously believed Habecker no longer represented them. This is yet another example of Representative Democracy - and we should be proud of it.

[Lefty Rivera]

Let me clarify: while I don't agree with the decision to boot Habecker (he seemed clearly stunned that he'd lost the election), I definitely respect the will of the voters. If they felt that Habecker no longer represented them, that's their right.

My impression was that the voters felt that Habecker's personal feelings vis-a-vis the Pledge were interfering with his ability to be an effective trustee, and so they relieved him of his duties.

[James C. Hess]

I'll be glad when the last of the baby boomers like Habecker are gone from the planet. They are useless, worthless, wastes of time and space.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

This is a perfect freedom of speech case. You have the freedom to speak. But what you say and who you say it to may cost you, say, your job, friendships and status. We all live with these limitations and act accordingly. Public people face the consequences more than people who talk only to friends and colleagues. If only voters could recall Ward Churchill.

[Phoenix Rising]

Both the State and Federal Constitutions prohibit tests of religion for office-holding. The only issue presented by recall proponents was the refusal to say the Pledge containing "Under God". I'd say that fails a legal test somewhere.

It's not often that voter opinion on candidates religious beliefs is so clearly defined as in this case. Usually, candidates with differing religious views are not voted into office in the first place, and the issues cloud the religious judgement. Here, though, is a case where the recall was specifically based on this man's religious dissent from an Unconstitutional (both State and Federal) practice.

If people don't like Habecker, they could have voted him out the last time he was up for election; he's been a town trustee for 13 years over a 21-year span. And they could vote him out next time the election came around with the cover of "issues". But to do so under such narrow circumstances calls into question the legal basis for his ouster; I predict he has a strong case, though I don't know what an appropriate judgement would be... A lawsuit is already pending.

[Doug Reynolds]

The funny thing is that these people that demand unquestioning obedience to concepts such as reciting the Pledge, getting weepy over the Flag and expressing reverence for the troops and that flip out about the Ward Churchill's of the world are usually the same one's that will decry the "Political Correctness" of the "Left." The moral: "We like free speech, as long as we agree wioth what is said."

[ohwilleke]

The voters of Estes Park are a disgrace to the state of Colorado.