Wyoming has never been a place where people avoid hard disagreement.
We argue over taxes, wind projects, school policy, grazing, and who gets to plow which road first after a blizzard. We disagree loudly and often.
Then we shake hands—or we don't—and vote again next time.
Lately a different habit is taking root. When someone dislikes an outcome, the next step is no longer persuasion or waiting for the next election. The next step is escalation: file a removal complaint, demand an investigation, sue the officials, try to force them out.
That's a big shift.
And it should worry anyone who cares about competent local government, regardless of party.
Former Wyoming governors cast the recent surge in removal requests as unprecedented. That word matters. Wyoming is small enough that we recognize patterns early.
When multiple counties start leaning on the same extreme remedy, something has changed in the culture.
Here's the problem: Removal processes exist for a reason. If an official is corrupt, neglecting duties, or abusing power, Wyoming needs a mechanism to respond.
But here's what happens when the tool gets warped. It becomes a routine weapon for policy fights or political grudges. The process becomes the punishment, and the target is often the people doing the daily work of governing.
Look at what has happened around the state.
In Platte County, residents filed a complaint seeking removal of all three commissioners, tied to a contentious wind project and the larger fight over renewable energy. The filing came packaged with a media push and sweeping claims that county officials dispute.
Weston County faced the same pattern with their county clerk. The removal effort drew statewide attention. Governor Mark Gordon's response included a point that should be printed and taped above every keyboard in Wyoming politics:
"The sanctity of our elections is of utmost importance."
Gordon went on to emphasize that voters' decisions should not be cast aside through a removal process unless there is overwhelming, compelling evidence of misconduct or malfeasance.
That principle is bigger than one clerk, one county, or one election. It's a reminder that elections are how communities choose leaders and undoing that choice requires an extraordinary burden of proof. When that burden gets treated like a suggestion, the door opens to a world where a motivated few can attempt to overrule the many.
That's removal politics in practice.
It doesn't always succeed on the merits. It succeeds by raising the cost of service.
Think about what that does to local leadership. Three things happen, and none of them are good for Wyoming.
It narrows the pool of people willing to run for office. Plenty of Wyomingites will volunteer for a hard job, long meetings, public criticism, and an endless stack of emails.
Far fewer will sign up for the risk of being targeted with complaint packets, legal threats, and personal smears because they made a decision someone dislikes.
It makes officials govern defensively. When every vote feels like it could trigger a campaign to remove you, you start making choices based on personal risk. That's terrible for long-term planning, smart budgeting, and honest deliberation.
It corrodes public trust. Accusations travel fast; corrections move slow. Even when claims fall apart, the lingering impression is that government is illegitimate and elections are suspect. Cynicism spreads, and civic participation suffers. People stop showing up because they assume the outcome will be attacked anyway.
The strangest part is that Wyoming already has a proven way to remove leaders who are doing a bad job. It's called an election. If you believe your commissioners or clerk or board members are failing, recruit candidates, build your case, knock on doors, show up, and vote. If you have evidence of serious wrongdoing, bring it forward through the proper channels and meet the high bar the law demands.
Here's what we should refuse to normalize: removal as a first move, litigation as a substitute for persuasion.
Wyoming's political culture has always prized straight talk, fair play, and winning your case in public. If we allow a "remove them" reflex to replace that culture, we'll teach good people to stay home, and we'll hand power to the loudest and most relentless factions.
So the next time a complaint packet lands in your feed, pause. Ask two Wyoming questions: What's the evidence? What remedy fits the facts?
Our elections are worth defending. Our local leaders are worth holding accountable.
Those two truths can live together as long as we remember that voters' decisions aren't disposable.
Gail Symons can be reached at GailSymons@mac.com
