September 17, 2009 09:18 PM UTC

Andrew Romanoff's odd opposition to EFCA

• 0 Comments
• by: twas brillig

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

twas brillig UPDATE: I contacted the Chieftain reporter to confirm whether he had, indeed, misquoted Andrew Romanoff. He stands by the original report. (Thus, I will return the title to the original.) So the original quote stands (now alongside the candidate’s later clarification):

I think we need to keep the secret ballot to avoid any kind of intimidation.

POLS UPDATE: Romanoff was apparently misquoted on EFCA by the Chieftain, and clarified his position this morning on 760 AM radio. The Pueblo Chieftain has a different version of their story including Romanoff’s stance on EFCA, which is in line with what he said on the radio this morning:

Asked for his opinion after Wednesday’s speech, Romanoff said he supported bringing the legislation to a Senate vote but could not support the most controversial part – which would do away with secret-ballot voting on whether workers wanted union representation.

“I support the bill except for eliminating the secret ballot,” he said.

Romanoff’s position is more than what Michael Bennet has said on the record, but is also not complete support of the legislation. Still, it does differentiate him from Bennet to some degree.

Original post after the jump, another diary on the subject here.

Earlier this month, our hosts understandably chided Sen. Michael Bennet on the EFCA issue, citing it as an opening for Andrew Romanoff:

Bennet’s urgency now at letting people know he supports the public option is just one part of two major Democratic measures that have served as a litmus test of sorts. The other issue, of course, is Bennet’s refusal to lay out a position on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). While EFCA is not something that the average voter is likely to care much about, it is a very important issue that many Democrats have used to gauge just what kind of “Democrat” Bennet might be in the Senate.

So imagine the surprise generated when Romanoff’s very first campaign event in a Democratic primary included the candidate seeking the coveted Right To Work endorsement, using rhetoric that labor can’t help but find both discouraging and insulting:

On the “card check” legislation that national labor unions want Congress to approve, Romanoff said he opposed the provisions that would eliminate secret-ballot elections on the question of whether to unionize. Colorado labor groups have been pressing Bennet to take a position, and will not be happy with Romanoff’s position on that key provision.

“I support the bill except for eliminating the secret ballot,” Romanoff said. “I think we need to keep the secret ballot to avoid any kind of intimidation.”

Parroting the “intimidation” rhetoric of the corporate lobby seems a bizarre way to define yourself to progressive Democrats on the first day of your campaign. To paraphrase Colorado Pols recently, is Andrew Romanoff trying to lose to Bennet?