Gov. Ritter is experiencing that wrath now because earlier this year he vetoed a bill that would have made it far easier for unions to organize non-union workplaces. The bill would have overturned a law that’s been on the books in Colorado for decades. A few Democrats, including Grand Junction Rep. Bernie Buescher, opposed the bill.

      To listen to the union attacks on Ritter, one might think that the Democratic governor of Colorado is the greatest threat to organized labor since Republican President Ronald Reagan broke up the Air Traffic Controllers Union.

      National labor leaders like the heads of the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters Union are demanding that the 2008 Democratic National Convention be relocated from Denver in retaliation for Ritter’s action. Failing that, they are threatening large protests outside the convention. High-level peace negotiations between the unions and Ritter, facilitated by Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, are scheduled for later this month.

      Doesn’t matter that Ritter has hardly abandoned unions, that he has already signed several other bills supported by labor. He must be punished for his one divergence from union doctrine.

      To his great credit, Ritter has showed no inclination to reverse his decision on the labor-organizing legislation — should a new version of the bill pass the Legislature — which he was convinced would be bad for the Colorado economy and all of the state’s workers. But Big Labor seems just as intent in reminding Ritter at every opportunity what the ‘D’ next to his name stands for.

       In the state Legislature, two Democratic leaders who clearly understand the connection between their party and labor unions — especially public-employees unions like those representing teachers — are under fire for their attacks on those who oppose the union view of public education.

      Former House Education Committee Chairman Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, has already stepped down as chairman after an e-mail he sent became public. In it, Merrifield said, “There must be a special place in Hell” for people who support charter schools, education vouchers, and privatization — all of which are anathema to public employees’ unions.

      By the middle of last week, there were also calls for Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Sue Windsels, D-Arvada, to step down. She was the recipient of Merrifield’s e-mail. More importantly, she and Merrifield were working on a means to overturn a 2004 law that protects the rights of parents to create charter schools in districts where the school boards adamantly refuse to accept them.

      In other words, the two have been actively seeking ways to limit parental choice regarding what schools their children may attend, all because the education establishment, including the Colorado Education Association, dislike too much choice.

      Large numbers of parents, however, have embraced it. Currently, some 45,000 students attend 114 charter schools in the state. Roughly 2,600 of them attend charter schools that were created directly as a result of the 2004 law, according to the Rocky Mountain News.

      In School District 51, there is one existing charter school chartered through District 51, and one expected to open this summer that would be established under the Charter School Institute, which was created by the 2004 legislation.

      All these students and parents, according Merrifield’s e-mail, deserve a special spot in Hades.

      Windsels and Merrifield introduced Senate Bill 61 to overturn that 2004 law, with the state teachers’ union support. But last week, Windsels said the bill won’t go forward. The brouhaha over Merrifield’s e-mail, combined with the fact that six Senate Democrats said they would vote against it, made its passage a political impossibility.

      The labor burden for all Democrats is a heavy one. Colorado Democrats, who now control both the legislative and executive branches in Colorado after decades in the minority wilderness, have responded with a flurry of legislation supported by unions.

      But, as Ritter and a handful of Democrats in the Legislature have demonstrated, having a ‘D’ next to one’s name doesn’t guarantee unconditional support for everything unions want.