Mid-Term Ballot Measures

The Ethical Risks of Mid-Term Ballot Measures Following a Failed Mayoral Recall

In municipal politics, few actions are more controversial than altering the structure of government in the middle of an elected official’s term. When a city council proposes a charter amendment or ballot question to change or abolish the office of the mayor shortly after a failed recall petition, the decision raises profound ethical questions about democratic legitimacy, fairness, and public trust.

The issue has recently drawn attention in Pueblo, Colorado, where a failed recall petition against the sitting mayor in March 2025 was followed by a City Council initiative to place a government-structure ballot question before voters in November 2025. While the council maintains that it is merely allowing citizens to decide, critics argue that the action represents an unethical attempt to circumvent voter intent and destabilize the democratic process.

This article explores the ethical ramifications of such actions, focusing on principles of representative democracy, accountability, procedural integrity, and governance ethics.

Democratic Legitimacy and the Will of the Voters

At the core of democratic ethics is respect for the sovereignty of the electorate. When voters choose a mayor in a general election, that decision is expected to stand for the duration of the official’s term, unless the public exercises a lawful mechanism such as recall.

A recall petition offers citizens a direct means to remove an elected leader before the end of their term. If that petition fails, it signals that either insufficient support exists for removal or that procedural thresholds were not met. When a city council immediately follows a failed recall with a charter amendment designed to eliminate or diminish the same office, the timing can appear to ignore or override the outcome of that democratic process.

Ethically, such action raises questions of respect for voter intent. Citizens who recently rejected (or did not support) a recall may perceive that the council is subverting their judgment by re-packaging the same outcome, removal of the mayor, under the guise of “structural reform.”

Ethical Governance and the Appearance of Retaliation

In public administration, appearance matters as much as intent. Even if the city hall circus claims the reform is about efficiency or cost savings, proposing it directly after a failed recall can appear retaliatory or politically motivated. The proximity in timing between the two events may erode public confidence that the council’s motives are impartial.

Ethical governance requires leaders to avoid not only actual conflicts of interest but also the appearance of impropriety. When citizens believe that elected officials are using procedural tools to punish or weaken another official, trust in local government deteriorates.

Transparency, deliberation, and timing are therefore crucial ethical components. A council genuinely pursuing structural reform would ideally initiate its review through independent studies, public hearings, and stakeholder consultation, rather than through a rapid ballot directive following political tension.

The Ethics of Stability and Predictability

Democratic systems rely on predictability to function effectively. Officeholders and voters operate under shared expectations about term lengths, duties, and transitions of power. Sudden structural changes, particularly mid-term, can undermine this stability.

From an ethical standpoint, changing the rules while a game is in progress violates the principle of procedural fairness. Even if the ballot measure is legally valid, implementing it during a sitting mayor’s term disregards the implicit social contract between voters and candidates at the time of the election.

The ethical alternative would be to delay any government-structure changes until the end of the current term. This would preserve institutional continuity while still honoring the electorate’s right to revisit the form of government through proper democratic channels.

Procedural Ethics and Public Participation

Procedural ethics focus on how decisions are made rather than merely what outcomes they produce. In local governance, this includes public notice, transparency, open debate, and equitable participation.

When a council fast-tracks a ballot measure, the public may not have sufficient time to understand its implications. If the proposal is drafted by insiders without robust community input, it risks being perceived as elite-driven governance rather than democratic reform.

Ethical process requires that structural amendments be debated through:

• Public workshops and hearings

• Independent legal and financial analysis

• Clear, neutral ballot language

• Sufficient public education on consequences

Failure to meet these standards can transform what might be a legitimate policy discussion into a procedural ambush, diminishing voter confidence in both the reform and the officials proposing it.

Power Dynamics and the Ethics of Institutional Self-Interest

A city council possesses significant procedural power- control over agendas, ordinances, and the ability to refer measures to voters. Ethically, that power must be used for the collective good, not as a weapon in political disputes.

When a legislative body seeks to abolish or weaken a separately elected executive office, it raises concerns about institutional self-interest. The move may appear to shift power back to the council at the expense of the executive branch, undermining the system of checks and balances that underpins accountable government.

Political theorists describe this behavior as “structural opportunism” using legitimate processes to achieve partisan or personal ends. Even if such actions are technically within legal authority, they erode the ethical foundation of balanced governance.

Public Trust and Civic Cynicism

Public trust is an essential currency of governance. Citizens who perceive manipulation, power struggles, or disregard for their votes are more likely to disengage from civic participation. Ethical governance aims to enhance trust, not diminish it.

In Pueblo’s case, residents might question why structural reform was not considered before the mayoral election or after the term’s conclusion. The compressed timeline suggests reaction rather than reflection, potentially fostering cynicism toward both the council and the political process as a whole.

Once eroded, trust is difficult to rebuild. Ethical leadership therefore demands restraint and deference to process, even when political disagreements are intense.

The Broader Impact on Democratic Norms

The ethical implications extend beyond Pueblo or any single mayor. If it becomes acceptable for city councils to initiate structural ballot measures soon after failed recalls, it could set a precedent that undermines democratic stability nationwide.

Every local government that elects mayors could face similar tactics: a failed recall followed by a “structural reform” campaign. This pattern risks normalizing the circumvention of electoral outcomes through procedural means, weakening faith in representative democracy at the municipal level.

Sustainable democracy requires that institutions respect temporal boundaries, terms, elections, and recall thresholds, so that political competition occurs within predictable, legitimate intervals. 

Ethical Remedies and Best Practices

While the council’s authority to propose ballot questions may be lawful under a home-rule charter, ethical governance would call for several corrective measures:

1. Independent Review: Commissioning an impartial task force to evaluate government structure before any ballot referral.

2. Timing Safeguards: Enacting policies to prevent structural ballot measures from being introduced within a specified period following a recall attempt.

3. Public Consultation: Requiring citizen advisory committees or public hearings prior to any mid-term government-form proposal.

4. Transition Provisions: Ensuring that any approved change takes effect only after the current mayor’s term concludes.

5. Transparency in Motives: Clearly disclosing the reasons for reform and separating them from individual political disputes.

These safeguards would protect both the appearance and reality of ethical governance.

Ethics Beyond Legality

The Pueblo example underscores a critical distinction between what is legal and what is ethical in public leadership. City councils may possess legal mechanisms to place questions before voters, but ethical leadership requires sensitivity to timing, intent, and perception.

When a failed recall is immediately followed by a structural ballot measure, the action risks being seen as an end-run around democracy. Such tactics, even if procedurally valid, can erode trust, destabilize governance, and damage the moral credibility of local institutions.

Ultimately, the question is not merely whether the council can act, but whether it should, and whether doing so strengthens or weakens the democratic fabric of the community. Ethical governance calls for patience, transparency, and respect for the electorate’s decisions, ensuring that political rivalry never eclipses the broader duty to preserve the public’s trust in democracy itself.