Recall elections are a healthy part of the democratic process. When an elected official — particularly those in local office with tremendous say over the day-to-day lives of their constituents and often limited public scrutiny — significantly deviates from the wishes of those who elected them, they deserve to be held accountable at the ballot box.

With Dillon’s recall election now passed, Summit Daily has done an exceptional job providing the opinions of candidates on both sides of this issue to our community. I hope every voter in Dillon read the extensive pieces written by both sides on this opinion page before making up their minds. With that in mind, this column’s intention isn’t to endorse one side or the other. As I don’t live in Dillon, I felt that choice was best left to the voters. One aspect of this recall does deserve some attention — that seventeen voters can trigger this process.

The fact that less than 2% of the population of a town can trigger this expensive and often divisive process does not serve democracy and is an expensive recipe for chaos and recriminations. Dillon Town Manager Nathan Johnson estimated this recall will cost the town $30,000. 

Seventeen voters is a truly miniscule number, less than required to get on the ballot in most student council elections, requiring almost no effort to gather. One could easily garner that support knocking on less than ten doors. On most nights of the week, you could collect all the signatures you need to initiate a recall while enjoying a few beers at Syndicate.

A recall process is, by its nature, extraordinary. It should be difficult and require a margin of effort that at least matches the expense the town is forced to absorb. The current threshold of 17 signatures means one ill-intentioned or exceptionally annoying individual, acting in bad faith could trigger recall after recall. (This is not my opinion of the proponents of the current effort.)

A recall process with such an astonishingly low bar will by its very nature freezes our elected officials, making them scared to act or make the necessary but controversial decisions required of those who hold office. Fear-driven governance stifles innovation and leads to ineffective leadership, ultimately harming the very people recalls are supposed to protect: the voters.

Recalls should be a mechanism of accountability in the most extreme circumstance, reserved for cases of clear misconduct, ethical violations or gross dereliction of duty. However, when the threshold is set too low, it opens the floodgates for abuse. Political opponents, special interest groups, or even a handful of angry residents can use recalls as a weapon to overturn legitimate election outcomes. This makes it harder for elected officials to govern effectively, as they are constantly looking over their shoulders, fearing that any unpopular but necessary decision could trigger a recall effort.

When recall thresholds are too lenient, they don’t just threaten elected officials — they threaten the entire community. Frequent and frivolous recall efforts create a cycle of instability that prevents long-term planning and responsible governance. Officials who fear being recalled over unpopular decisions may be less willing to tackle difficult but necessary issues, from infrastructure projects to tax policies to affordable housing measures. Instead of governing with the town’s best interests in mind, they may prioritize short-term appeasement over long-term solutions.

This shouldn’t be seen as a critique of the recent recall effort. Those citizens followed the current process and have very real complaints about how Dillion is being governed. I hope flaws in the current recall process did not impact voters’ opinion on the core issue either way. The question moving forward is how we want our communities governed. There is a better line, where we can both hold our elected officials accountable, but also recognize that every disagreement shouldn’t result in tens of thousands of dollars in public expense.

The recall process is an essential tool in any democracy, but, like any tool, it must be used responsibly and for the proper purpose. When the bar is set too low, it does more harm than good, encouraging chaos instead of accountability. As always, regardless of your opinion or feelings about the process, I hope you voted. Your voice matters. 

Ari Rabin-Havt lives in Breckenridge and served as deputy campaign manager on Sen. Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign and was a Sanders aide from 2017 to 2021. His writing has appeared in the Washington Post, Jacobin, The American Prospect, The New Republic and other publications. You can find him on Twitter @arirabinhavt or email him at summitdailyari@gmail.com.