I wrote six letters to elected officials asking what they intend to do to uphold their constitutional responsibilities. I’m still waiting for an answer.
In August, I published The Constitutional Crisis We Keep Treating as Politics, in which I asked what our elected officials were prepared to do to uphold their constitutional responsibilities. I followed that essay by writing six letters to my two U.S. senators, my congressional representative, the governor, the attorney general, and the New York State Board of Elections. I asked specific questions about their authority, their actions, and what they intended to do in response to the threats I described.
Nearly seven weeks later, two offices have sent generic acknowledgments thanking me for contacting them. The other four haven’t responded at all. I still haven’t received a substantive answer to any of my questions.
Since I sent those letters, the news hasn’t slowed down. The circumstances I wrote about in August haven’t gone away. The questions remain urgent, and the stakes are real.
Yet I still don’t know where the officials who represent me stand on the questions I asked them.
An acknowledgment isn’t an answer
I understand that elected officials and their staffs receive enormous amounts of correspondence. I don’t expect a senator or governor to personally answer every letter, and I know that a constituent’s questions may require research before an office can respond meaningfully. But I didn’t write to express a passing frustration or simply register my opinion. I asked specific questions about constitutional (both national and NY state) responsibilities and what these offices intended to do with the authority entrusted to them.
A form email thanking me for writing doesn’t tell me whether anyone considered those questions. It doesn’t explain an official’s position, identify any action taken, or tell me what I can expect from the people elected to represent me. Silence tells me no more.
I am not claiming these officials have done nothing. I don’t know everything they have done behind the scenes, and I won’t pretend that I do. That’s precisely the problem: they haven’t told me where they stand on the concerns I raised.
I want to know what they believe their responsibilities require of them, what they are prepared to do, and how they intend to hold the line when constitutional principles collide with political pressure. Those aren’t unreasonable questions for a constituent to ask.
And the timing matters. We are approaching another election in which voters will be asked to make consequential decisions while many of us are already frustrated by the choices available.
A vote is not a blank check
I know the political bind many Democratic voters feel. We can be dissatisfied with our party’s elected officials, disappointed by their responses, and frustrated by what seems to be a lack of urgency. We can want stronger leadership, clearer answers, and a willingness to act rather than simply issue statements. Yet we may also believe the stakes are too high to risk helping elect the alternative.
That leaves voters in a difficult position. If officials believe our votes are secure because we fear what the other party might do, what incentive do they have to answer our questions or earn our continued support?
I will vote for Democratic candidates in November. But I intend to cast those votes on the Working Families Party line, where that option is available. New York’s fusion voting system gives voters the opportunity to support a candidate through a party line other than the Democratic line. For me, that distinction matters. I can make a practical choice about who should hold office without treating my vote as an unconditional endorsement of a party or every person running under its banner.
My vote is not a declaration that I’m satisfied. It doesn’t mean I have stopped asking questions, lowered my expectations, or decided that party loyalty matters more than constitutional responsibility. I can recognize the political realities we face and still expect more from the people who represent me.
I don’t believe accountability should depend on whether an elected official thinks a constituent will vote for someone else. The obligation to answer questions, explain decisions, and exercise independent judgment doesn’t disappear when an election becomes difficult or the alternatives seem worse.
Statements vs. Actions
That’s part of what I meant in my original essay when I wrote about the difference between statements and action. Public expressions of concern have their place, but they aren’t a substitute for doing the work of governing. Neither is silence.
I sent six letters because I wanted to know what these officials intended to do. In those letters, I wasn’t asking them to agree with every concern I raised. I was asking them to explain their positions and their responsibilities.
Seven weeks later, I still don’t have those answers. The news continues, the election draws closer, and I am left to decide how to vote without knowing where these officials stand on the questions I put before them.
I will vote. I will also keep asking questions. Because, if elected officials want our votes, they should be prepared to tell us where they stand.
You Were Guided Here for a Reason
Work With Colleen Irwin
Whether you are seeking clarity, validation, healing, or deeper spiritual growth, I offer readings, mentoring, and transformative experiences designed to help you move forward with confidence. Explore private sessions, upcoming classes, and events created to support your journey.
Leave a Reply