Pledge of Allegiance Refusal Causes Recall Vote for Trustee

By Linda Orlando

Estes Park, CO, is a quaint village of 5,600 people at the edge of the Rocky Mountain National Park, best known for its affordable housing, snowy peaks, golf courses, and wildlife. But a controversy brewing over the Pledge of Allegiance has tainted the quaintness in the last couple of weeks as the town argues over the refusal of Trustee David Habecker to say the Pledge of Allegiance before the Town Board’s meetings twice a month.

The Pledge wasn’t a regular part of the meetings until last May, when another Trustee, Lori Jeffrey-Clark, proposed the idea of reciting it and her proposal won approval by the Board, who agreed that it was a good way to show respect for the country during wartime. Habecker was away on business when the change was proposed, so he didn’t voice opposition initially, but later he would regularly stand and say the pledge but close his mouth when the words "under God" were spoken by the other trustees. After several weeks of doing this, he began to research the Constitution and think more seriously about the issue, and he decided he wanted to take a stand against what he thought was improper. So at the Board’s first meeting in September, Habecker decided to make his concerns public. When the other trustees stood up to say the Pledge, Habecker sat down and kept his mouth shut.

This flagrant disrespect outraged Lori Jeffrey-Clark, who was a public affairs officer for the Navy for 22 years. She and her husband are raising their 10-year old nephew, who is a Cub Scout, and she decided to teach him a little about government by bringing him to the next Board meeting. Before the meeting convened, she laid on each trustee’s seat a printed copy of an enlarged dollar bill with the words "In God We Trust" highlighted.

"I excused myself from the board, said I was speaking as a citizen and asked how many of them had noticed that Mr. Habecker was sitting down during the pledge," said Jeffrey-Clark, who had voted for Habecker and sat next to him at meetings for four years. "I said, it's his constitutional right, but there are consequences. Then I said you (Habecker) don't represent me, and I want my vote back." When news of the controversy began to spread, many voters agreed with Jeffrey-Clark. "His action as a personal protest is not what we want as a representative. He's taking a personal stand as an elected official," said Richard Clark, who is pushing for a recall vote to oust Habecker for his refusal to recite the pledge. "We the people believe that his actions and his verbiage do not represent us as citizens for a responsible government." Clark and others who support the recall effort say that voters have lost confidence in Habecker’s ability to represent the patriotism and "common decency" of the citizens of Estes Park.

Habecker, who has served on the Town Board for over 12 years, says that reciting a pledge with the words "under God" is against his beliefs. He says he doesn’t oppose the meaning of the pledge, and he considers himself a patriot. But he objects to the words "under God" because they exclude some beliefs, and religious references have no place in an official town meeting. "I do not believe that this book, that this God, that this country is under that God. I believe the framers of the Constitution had a separation there," said Habecker. "You know what people's opinion is? It's the Constitution of the United States. It is the constitution of Colorado and it is all the rules and ordinances of Estes Park."

In January, Habecker sued the town and some of its citizens to try to stop the recall election, resulting in a temporary injunction against the effort. But a federal judge lifted that injunction last week, ruling that the election can take place. The Town Board will meet Tuesday night to set a date, and it could happen as soon as March 22. In his ruling last week, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham said that Habecker has certain rights, but citizens also have the right to petition to recall him. Habecker’s attorney says he probably won’t appeal the ruling.

Not that an appeal would matter anyway. Habecker’s term runs out in 2006, so he’ll be out of office anyway because of term limits. At least he had a chance to make a name for himself before leaving.