Party 1, Politician 0

A few weeks back, I reported on a developing conflict between a Colorado politician and her political party. Evie Hudak, a Democratic state senator from the suburbs west of Denver, was facing a recall campaign due to her votes in favor of firearms regulations earlier this year. Given the results of September's recall elections, Democrats now only control the Colorado Senate by one seat. Hudak's loss would end unified Democratic control of the Colorado government.

The particular conflict that I mentioned, though, was between Hudak and her party. Under Colorado law, Hudak could resign her seat and be replaced by another Democrat. A vacancy committee, consisting of local party officials in the incumbent's district, would get to pick her replacement. Hudak no doubt wanted to fight to keep her seat and her career, but the odds of her winning a recall election were long. (Her district is more conservative, and her voting record more liberal, than those of either of the Democratic senators who were recalled in September.) To fight and lose would have been devastating for her party, whereas a resignation would have been devastating only to her.

You might have missed it amidst the Thanksgivukkah festivities last week, but Hudak actually announced her resignation just short of the recall signature deadline. Barring further recall efforts or unforeseen events, the state legislature will reconvene next month under unified (if tenuous) Democratic control. Hudak, no doubt under considerable pressure both explicit and implied, took one for the team and stepped down. This hardly settles the question of whether the party is the creature of politicians or vice versa, but it is a reminder that while there advantages to belonging to a party, there are also costs. The party generally wants its politicians to enjoy long terms and fulfill their ambitions, but not at the cost of a governing majority.

More here.