EDITORIAL: DA Padden recall effort lacks evidence, rationale and credibility

In Aurora, and all of Colorado, political recalls are intended as a safeguard against misconduct in office. They are not intended to provide for partisan gamesmanship and certainly not to elevate personal or political grievances.

The current effort to recall Arapahoe County District Attorney Amy Padden falls far short of those standards. It appears to be nothing more than a political vendetta spearheaded by Aurora City Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky.

The recall “committee,” led by Jurinsky, along with Judy Lutkin and Suzanne Taheri, faces the daunting task of collecting 75,875 valid signatures by Sept. 30 of those who agree with a cause that has no credible evidence or inclination to oust Padden, who just started her four-year tenure in January.

In reality, that means well over 90,000 signatures are needed to account for errors and invalid names.

That’s no small hurdle. Colorado law sets such high thresholds precisely to ensure recalls are driven by genuine public will, not narrow disputes. In the last decade, most recall attempts in Colorado have failed to reach the ballot.

That’s telling.

If the pro-recall committee has won the public heart for this cause, it doesn’t appear to have won their wallets. By choice or fate, Jurinsky says she’s not planning on collecting the tens of thousands of dollars needed to pay for canvassers to collect the needed signatures to ask voters what they think.

Instead, Jurinsky told reporters she’s keeping some petitions at the Aurora pub she owns and manages. She has not made public how much progress she’s made in that effort.

Jurinsky and her two allies insist Padden has failed the community as its top prosecutor, but they have provided only opinion and conjecture, no facts. The charges against Padden rest on misstatements, half-truths, mischaracterizations, and most tellingly, personal grudges linked directly to Jurinsky, according to recent reporting in the Sentinel.

Take the tragic case of 24-year-old Kaitlyn Weaver, killed last summer by a 15-year-old driver who was both unlicensed and undocumented. Recall supporters cite the juvenile’s probation sentence as proof that Padden is soft on crime. Yet sentencing juveniles is ultimately the judge’s role, not the DA’s. State law strictly limits what prosecutors can disclose about juvenile cases. To hang Weaver’s death around Padden’s neck is not just unfair — it’s misleading. We agree that the public deserves more transparency in sentencing, even in the case of juveniles. State law prevents it.

Another recall charge highlights the prosecution of Robin Niceta, a former Arapahoe County social worker who falsely accused Jurinsky of child abuse. Niceta was prosecuted not by Padden’s office, but by Denver prosecutors, because of the potential conflict of interest. Even so, the 18th Judicial District later pursued additional charges in a related case where Niceta faked a brain tumor in an effort to dodge the court. The 18th Judicial District began working on that case before Padden was elected to oversee the district. Still, her prosecutors asked for additional jail time for Niceta. The judge decided otherwise, imposing probation, even while Niceta serves a prison sentence.

Again, this is hardly the evidence of dereliction that would justify removing a district attorney from office. 

Other examples are equally thin. Recall supporters criticize Padden for dropping charges against protesters who blocked a street during a march after the police killing of Kilyn Lewis. Yet prosecutors dismissed the case for lack of evidence — the same standard applied across Colorado since 2020 in similar protest cases, including those tied to the death of Elijah McClain. Singling out Padden for following common legal practice is disingenuous.

The petition also complains that Padden intends to dismiss charges against a mentally incompetent defendant in a kidnapping case. But state law requires judges — not prosecutors — to dismiss charges when a defendant is found mentally unfit and unlikely to recover. Padden herself has advocated for reforms to close gaps in the system. That is hardly evidence of negligence. It shows a DA working within the law while pressing for change.

The selective outrage, the cherry-picking of cases, and the misstatements of law all point in one direction. This recall effort is not about Padden’s record. It’s about Jurinsky’s long-running disputes and grudges. Jurinsky has feuded with activists, sparred with prosecutors, and carried very public resentments. Now she is attempting to turn her personal battles into a countywide referendum, at huge taxpayer cost.

There is also no denying the partisan poison in this scheme. Padden is a Democrat. Jurinsky, Lutkin, and Taheri are Republicans. Past recalls in Colorado, including the failed attempt against Sen. Kevin Priola after he switched parties from Republican to Democrat, have been driven by similar partisan machinery. 

That partisanship should raise alarms for every voter in Arapahoe County.

A recall election is not a redux of the past election. It is an extraordinary measure that disrupts governance, drains resources, and erodes confidence in institutions. To wield it as a partisan weapon is to undermine the very principle of representative government.

The people of Arapahoe County elected Amy Padden less than a year ago to serve as their district attorney, by a wide margin. If voters believe she is unfit, they will have their say at the next election. That is how democracy works.

If Jurinsky, or anyone, has compelling evidence, however, of actual malfeasance, bring it. Otherwise, voters should see this recall effort for what it is. It’s not a quest for justice but a political grudge match dressed up as one.