Decades ago, the landscape of Colorado politics was often marked by fervent debate, not just over policy, but fundamentally about the very conduct of campaigns. A significant flashpoint emerged when Democratic candidate Aaron Harber directly challenged incumbent Secretary of State Natalie Meyer, initiating a public dispute over the principles of election integrity and the ethical standards expected of political contenders.
Harber ignited the controversy by publicly denouncing Meyer’s existing “fair practices code,” arguing it lacked the necessary strength to curb what he perceived as “dirty tricks” prevalent in political campaigns, including severe concerns like espionage and sabotage. His press releases framed the code as insufficient, setting the stage for a dramatic ideological clash over acceptable political conduct.
In response, Meyer clarified that her code of conduct was not a unilateral dictate but a collaborative effort, drafted six years prior by a non-partisan community group. Its purpose, she maintained, was to serve as a voluntary guideline, a gentle reminder to candidates about the community’s expectations for fair and transparent elections, emphasizing cooperation rather than enforcement.
Unconvinced by Meyer’s explanation, Harber escalated the conflict by creating and promoting his own, more stringent code. He boldly declared that, if elected, he would mandate all Colorado political candidates to sign his version, asserting its superiority and publicly refusing to endorse Meyer’s document as a symbolic act of dissent against what he deemed its deficiencies in promoting genuine campaign ethics.
Meyer swiftly condemned Harber’s actions, labeling his unilateral alteration of the existing statement on the cusp of the primary election as “inappropriate.” She expressed a willingness to re-evaluate campaign pledges, but only in a bipartisan manner and following the election, underscoring her commitment to collaborative legislative processes over individual declarations in fostering election integrity.
The debate over political conduct was not isolated to the Harber-Meyer contention. Years later, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo and his Democratic challenger Ken Toltz found themselves engaged in a similar public sparring match, despite both having signed the “Code of Civility” authored by the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, further highlighting the ongoing challenges in upholding fair practices.
Tancredo publicly accused Toltz of potential violations, specifically citing third-party advertising by groups like the Sierra Club and labor unions, which he claimed ran negative campaigns. He challenged Toltz to publicly denounce such efforts, arguing that a true commitment to the code meant ensuring all allied activities adhered to the stipulated principles of transparent and ethical political conduct.
Toltz’s campaign manager, Sarah Kendall, quickly diffused the accusations, stating that Toltz had willingly signed the pledge and was committed to adhering to its principles, implying that any alleged violations by third parties were beyond his direct control. However, Tancredo persistently contended that the continued presence of these ads suggested Toltz was not fully upholding his signed commitment to fair practices, keeping the issue of election integrity at the forefront.
These historical episodes underscore a persistent thread within Colorado politics: the recurring tension between aggressive campaigning and the aspiration for principled political conduct. They serve as enduring examples of how campaign ethics, election integrity, and the pursuit of fair practices remain central to public discourse, shaping the very nature of democratic engagement in the state.
