The Denver Post, March 14, on retracting its endorsement for Sen. Cory Gardner:
We endorsed Sen. Cory Gardner in 2014 because we believed he’d be a statesman. We knew he’d be a conservative voice in Congress, to be certain, but we thought his voice would bring “fresh leadership, energy and ideas.”
We see now that was a mistake - consider this our resolution of disapproval.
Gardner has been too busy walking a political tight rope to be a leader. He has become precisely what we said in our endorsement he would not be: “a political time-server interested only in professional security.”
Gardner was not among the 12 Republicans who joined Democrats in rejecting President Donald Trump’s use of a national emergency declaration to allocate funds to a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
We fully expect to disagree with our lawmakers from time to time - in fact we’ve been critical of Gardner but stuck by him through tough but defensible votes including the attempted repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
But these are extraordinary times. This is a bogus emergency that takes executive over-reach to an extreme not seen even under President Barack Obama. Trump’s declaration is an abuse of his power, a direct overturning of Congress’ deliberate decision to pass a federal budget without funding for a wall.
Put simply this is a constitutional crisis and one of Colorado’s two senators has failed the test.
These times call for a courageous bipartisan repudiation like that shown by Sen. Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio.
“It’s imperative for the president to honor Congress’ constitutional role. A national emergency declaration is a tool to be used cautiously and sparingly,” Portman said on the floor of the Senate before voting in favor of the disapproval resolution.
To be honest we were surprised by Gardner’s vote. It’s completely inconsistent with every stance he has taken on Trump’s presidency. He told reporters in 2017 that “I don’t think the wall is the best idea,” and in a telephone town hall a month later he said, “I believe we have to have border security, but I do think billions of dollars on a wall is not the right way to proceed.”
Gardner said in a statement Thursday posted online (we called after business hours on Thursday and Gardner was traveling and not available for comment): “There is a crisis at the border and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have prevented a solution. As a result, the president has declared a national immigration emergency, legal authority which he clearly has under the 1976 law, a law invoked 56 times by every previous president since Jimmy Carter. Between October and February, border patrol apprehensions were up nearly 100 percent and since 2012, border patrol methamphetamine seizures are up 280 percent.”
If Gardner truly believes there is a crisis at the border and that a wall would substantially help with the situation, why wasn’t he lobbying his fellow Republicans to pass a budget in December prior to the shutdown that included Trump’s requested $5.7 billion for a wall?
In Gardner’s defense, he said he voted to open the government because he opposes shutdowns as a matter of principle, a position we lauded him for at the time. But we’re surprised he doesn’t feel the same twinge of principle when it comes to an executive order that is so blatantly a repudiation of Congress’ will.
Gardner could still prove to be a great senator for Colorado, a man who puts his state and his principles above party and politics. It’s a rare person these days who can take that road. In our endorsement this November of former U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, a Republican from Aurora who was soundly defeated by Rep. Jason Crow, we stuck by someone who had shown a willingness to oppose that which he found morally reprehensible in his own party.
In contrast, Gardner was a never-Trumper in the primary who in recent months endorsed the president’s re-election campaign even as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation continues to unveil the worst of this administrations web of lies and deceit. Tuesday’s vote was the last straw.
We no longer know what principles guide the senator and regret giving him our support in a close race against Mark Udall.
Editorial: https://dpo.st/2HzrUjS
___
The Journal, March 14, on the red-flag gun bill:
Colorado’s so-called red-flag gun bill - HB19, Extreme Risk Protection Orders - feels tailor-made to divide a state such as Colorado, which has seen both its share of high-profile mass shootings as well as political ruptures on the fault line of gun control.
Since the bill, supported by Democrats, passed the state House on a party-line vote, 10 Colorado counties pledged not to enforce it, including Montezuma County. It is now up for debate in the state Senate, where Democrats also have a majority, and Gov. Jared Polis has said he is sympathetic to its intent. If he signed it into law, it would be the first significant gun legislation in the state since 2013, the last time Democrats had majorities in both houses. That ended with the recall of two state senators.
We do not look favorably on cities, towns or counties declaring themselves sanctuaries, whether it is to shield undocumented immigrants from federal law enforcement agents, or gun owners from legislation that passes Constitutional muster on Second Amendment grounds, as we believe Colorado’s red flag bill does in light of the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision.
We think there may be another issue with this red-flag bill, however.
It allows a law enforcement officer or a family or household member to ask a court to recognize that a person “poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody” and issue a temporary order to take the person’s guns.
After no more than 14 days, the gun owner can respond to argue for the return of the gun or guns and will have court-appointed counsel. At that point, the court can continue the order for one year. During that year, the owner can appeal the order once, if he or she “establishes by clear and convincing evidence that he or she no longer poses a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others” - but “the respondent has the burden of proof at a termination hearing.”
We worry that shifting the burden of proof to the accused violates the spirit if not the letter of the Fifth Amendment, that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
There are good reasons to want to take guns from those who are thought to pose a danger to themselves and others. We need only look at the sad numbers of victims of gun violence, including suicide, and the devastated survivors. When Rhode Island proposed similar legislation a year ago, however, its branch of the American Civil Liberties Union said it was greatly concerned by the bill’s impact on civil liberties “and the precedent it sets for the use of coercive measures against individuals not because they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might, someday, commit one.”
Nevertheless, last June, Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo, a moderate Democrat whom we admire, signed it into law.
Colorado is not Rhode Island. And we think there is still time for Democrats of good will to work with Republicans in the state Senate to modify this bill.
We cannot see why the customary burden of proof must be reversed. All of the bill’s laudable aims still would be preserved and the Senate, we suspect, could get it passed with a few Republican votes, which could go a long way toward tamping these partisan fires while still making Coloradans safer.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2TQKCuu
Please read our comment policy before commenting.