I’ve been a little pre-occupied lately, but I really regret learning about this one after the fact.
As many of you know, I am no fan of the District Attorney for Colorado’s Fifth Judicial District, a fella named Mark Hurlbert.
Hurlbert is the prosecutor who famously (stupidly?) decided to drop felony charges of leaving the scene of an accident involving serious bodily injury, originally filed against wealth fund manager Martin Erzinger, because – and I’m not shittin ya here – “felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger’s profession.”
I’ve vented enough on Hurlbert’s “judgment” in this case with a whole series of columns on the subject, but I also always took some solace in the fact that Hurlbert was destined to leave office after the next election, because he’s term-limited by statute.
I’ve never been a real fan of term limits, largely because voters should be given the option of retaining – or lynching – incumbents based on their quality of service. Personally, I would have preferred Hurlbert to have lost an election, but what the hell, I thought, at least he’s out.
Well, not so fast. Admittedly, my normal habit of monitoring stories and political events around the country appears to have lapsed a bit, because I missed the fact that ol’ Mark liked his job enough to get Question 1A on this past Tuesday’s election ballot. Hurlbert asked voters in the Fifth District – which includes Colorado’s Summit, Eagle, Lake and Clear Creek Counties – whether they would be willing to extend the limit on the District Attorney’s post from two to three terms, as they have in other six other districts around the state.
Well, I didn’t hear about it until after the results were in, but I couldn’t be more pleased with the outcome. Turns out that not only is Hurlbert term-limited, but voters there actually did get the privilege of extending a big middle finger to the D.A. before he hit the streets. Sorry Mark, but voters in the Fifth District rejected ballot Question 1A by a huge margin. Indeed, in Eagle County – home of the Erzinger case – the “NO” vote was more than 66 percent.
Hurlbert was, of course, gracious in defeat, telling the Vail Daily that his goal all along was simply to put the question before the voters, concluding that “ultimately the people have spoken.” Yeah and, it turns out, the only thing an overwhelming majority of them had to say was “you suck, Mark.”
No matter, Hurlbert says will accept that decision (as if he has a choice), but added that he’s also been grooming one of his own deputies to run for the job next November.
Gee … that’s one endorsement the as-of-yet-unnamed candidate could probably do without.