Discernment Over Emails
A galvanizing moment used against me during the 2013 Senate recall came from an interview I did with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. My opponents seized on a comment, taken out of context, in which I advised my Senate colleagues not to read their emails during that tense period.
In my interview with Maddow, I said I was inspired by Abraham Lincoln’s example, where I was taking note of public opinion: “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.” Inspired by that idea, we were paying attention to public opinion. But we stopped reading the thousands of form emails that did nothing to inform deliberation.
Despite vulgar, distracting, and seemingly orchestrated emails from those opposed to the commonsense gun safety laws, we focused on public polling data.
The takeaway in the 2012 polls showed that in Colorado, the majority wanted stricter gun laws generally (55%) and a clear majority for an assault-weapons ban renewal (58%). Another poll followed in December 2012 (by Keating Research), in which 55% of Colorado voters favored stricter gun laws (40% opposed).
Note those dates. After the Aurora Theater shooting in July 2012, and then another horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut in December 2012, people nationally were shaken to their core over the mass shooting tragedies.
More recently, a 2023 Giffords poll found that 62% of Colorado voters wanted stronger gun laws, while 29% wanted weaker ones.
I will not dignify those emails sent during that time by repeating what was written. We kept copies in a notebook, archiving the threat they posed. Actually, the email comments make Donald Trump look very tame and professional. I mean, every four-letter word you can imagine, including every four-letter-word slight to a woman were sent. Many email opening statements began that way. It was completely vile and very upsetting to the recipients, such that they could barely concentrate on the work at hand.
What those orchestrating the backlash failed to understand—and what high schooler Ben Wolman captured in his JFK Profile in Courage essay in 2014 about my recall—was that our approach aligned with the very model of political courage Kennedy described. Elected officials are chosen to make reasoned judgments for the public good; sometimes that means leading public opinion, informing it, correcting it, and, when necessary, ignoring the noise so that sound decisions can be made for the welfare of the nation. I did not ignore my constituents’ views; I stayed informed about their desires. But I also judged that the measures we passed, meant to prevent the kinds of tragedies that had shaken our communities, were justified and honorable.
One colleague, former State Senator Evie Hudak, took the emails particularly hard. She ultimately resigned rather than endure a recall campaign for voting for the gun safety laws that were passed in 2013. She was horrified by the emails she received and took every threat seriously. That is part of the cost of public service in an age when anger is easily amplified.
So why did I tell the caucus to stop reading emails?
Because the volume and character of the messages were designed to derail governance. Productive civic input—specific, local, and reasoned—shapes policy. Vile, anonymous invective only aims to silence it. I read the substantive, thoughtful letters; I ignored the manufactured outrage. The first sentence (or word) made it easy to determine the content.
Here’s the simple truth: democracy depends on us being the better angels of our nature. It has come to symbolize Lincoln’s hope that moral restraint, empathy, and shared humanity would prevail over division and violence.
We must speak plainly, civilly, and refuse to let vitriol drown out reason.
If you care about the issues, do three things: inform yourself, make your case with facts and respect, and hold elected officials accountable in person, at a town hall, over coffee, or by volunteering. That kind of engagement builds public sentiment in the right way, and with it, durable, principled policy.