U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 01, 2011 06:15 AM UTC
43 Comments
And I hope they all have kids who come out as gay this year.
I’m going to fight tooth and nail to make sure we retake the house. I’ll pay a special focus to kicking Waller the hell out of his seat.
Elections have consequences. I still have not seen an analysis of why the dems lost in Colorado, let alone in the US. Or, how they intend to win in 2012.
The repubs were lean and hungry. They had a strategy, money and means. Dems had what?
Now, I think that it wasn’t just a “social issue,” I think that there were economic factors. The catholic church did not want to have to extend benefits to civil union partners in its many non-religious enterprises. Who else lobbied against the bill? I would like to see the full array of non-religious groups who did not support the bill…
The majority of people who self identified as catholics (or any other religion for that matter) were actually supporting the measure today. Including a LARGE number of ministers.
Poll numbers suggest that a majority of Catholic voters support Civil Unions in CO.
And I’m proud to support civil unions and same-sex marriage.
She’s the closest to me of the far right freshmen. Totally beatable. But we need a candidate and one as hard working as Sara doesn’t come along just every day.
I got a chance to testify and stayed all the way to the end. There whole room gasped when BJ Nikkel voted no. I believed she was the most likely to support it.
After some of the testimony I heard, you’d have to be a heartless bastard to vote it down.
She was consigliere to Musty Musgrave. No way in hell she was going to support the bill.
The argument was that the legislature should not override the vote of the people.
Now, aren’t there court cases moving forward to the Supreme Court on the issue of gay marriage? The pro-gay marriage arguing that it is a civil right and that a vote of the majority can not override a civil right?
to put it on the ballot.
It lost 9-2. Hypocrisy exposed.
I should scrolled down farther,
how they could vote this way in 2011 is beyond me.
Listened to it all day. I say let’s get it on the ballot. Expensive – yes. Should we put a price on peoples civil rights? – absolutely not.
So it will have to wait for next year.
its worth mentioning that there was an amendment by Sue Ryden to refer it to the ballot at the very end of hearing. It failed 9 to 2. Directly after the vote, Barker started talking about “respecting the will of the people” in 2006. Shameful.
The voters were right 8 times. And yet we got screwed.
and to show them our knowledge that the people’s will is with the Dems on this one. She called their bluff, and the R’s voted against it. Let the record show they never had any intent to honor the will of the people.
The words of Sam Cooke come to mind.It’s been a long time coming, but a change gonna come. Oh yes it will.
It will come.
Justice delayed, however, is justice denied.
All of the Democrats voted yes. All of the Republicans voted no. Please give each of the Democrats a contribution to their next re-election. Elections have consequences and we must elect more Dems. It’s that simple.
Civil unions/gay marriage will be legal – someday – it will HAPPEN
And in an odd way, I do feel sorry for the ‘no-voters’ above — their names will forever be tied in history, in regard to this vote, much the same way of the politicians who voted against Civil Rights legislation – for those who voted “no” above, a terribly, ugly history awaits…
(I gotta say that Jerry Sonnenberg is family to me and one of the top guys that mentored me when I ran for the House as a GOPer – I abstain from calling the dissenters above “bigots” because Jerry Sonnenberg is not a bigot, considering the affection and time he showed to me, despite my very pro-gay positions and religious background – but that said, he should’ve voted for civil unions and it breaks my heart that he did not)
No matter – we will have our day (that’s a promise!)
In liberty (with LGBTers!)
“Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling, who paused for almost ten seconds before voting, and could barely raise his head to eye level as he casted his vote, refused to answer why he voted ‘no.'”
Source, and video.
Sonnenberg was welcoming to me as chair of the Ag committee when I went to the Capitol for HB 1063, and very friendly with my niece as well. He struck me as a good guy. Reading the description of his vote above breaks my heart a little bit… what’s going on here? I don’t even know what to think.
…and doing what he thought was in his political interests. I think it does not speak well of him that he understood the choice he was making – and then voted to continue discriminating against a group of citizens.
I wonder if there’s more to it. Steadman says some Repubs thought the civil unions bill was a calculated attack on their party unity and an attempt to fracture them–could he have bought that argument and felt very strongly about it? Or could he have made a deal regarding another bill? Or does McNulty have more power over him than we know?
Sonnenberg is neither stupid nor pathologically regressive; at least, that’s my impression of him. I think he knows enough to understand that social conservatives are eventually going to be unsuccessful in denying equal rights to same sex couples. I had a lot of hope that he’d vote the right way, understanding that there’s a place for a socially moderate, fiscally conservative Republican in good ol’ purple Colorado. If that description is accurate, he knew the right thing to do, he wanted to do it, and he didn’t. I have a hard time believing he’s that smart, but not smart enough to realize his political future doesn’t depend on gay-bashing.
U.S. House is out – those guys are staying there forever. U.S. Senate or any statewide race requires a ton of money – and that requires support from the party bigshots. The other possibility is an appointment once there’s a Republican governor – and again that requires support from the part bigshots.
So McNulty and a couple of others could have easily told him that his political future was over if he voted yes. And it was a very credible threat because future office requires that party backing as well as votes.
I haven’t seen anything redeeming about Sonnenberg at any event or hearing I’ve attended. When we were at the hearing for McKinley’s bill, he was flirting with his female witnesses. I thought he was ….. well…. I’m not going to say those words. You get the point. When I look at the guy, I just see ego. It can be a rush of power to block a bill that effects tens of thousands of Coloradans.
But I’ll own up to being a big “assume the best of people” person, to a fault, for all my snarkiness. Maybe he really is just a jerk.
Sponsored the Bull Semen bill.
Bulls — monogamous capitalists, happily married and spewing their semen only within the bounds of holy matrimony as God, the Church, and Mother Nature all intended.
And here I sat thinking it was all about welfare for ranchers rather than sexuality.
[headslap]That’ll teach me.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I use the term corporate catholic church. They lobby the state legislature. They didn’t want to have to deal with the legal implications of civil unions within their non-clerical personnel administration, as I understand it, IMHO. If you don’t know where the power is, you will never win anything.
Did anyone see the picture of the priest standing with little children, all saying the rosary???
Gardner and Waller are in very strong Republican Districts and they will not be beaten in the next election.
Barker, on the other hand, is in a somewhat competitive district. Dennis Apaun was the former incumbent but he was probably a little “too left” for the voters there. If the Dems put up a reasonable and moderate candidate they might have a chance.
We just need to replace 1 rep in the entire house with a Dem. Then the committees will all be +1 Dem.
Didn’t you run for the Republican Party Chair in Boulder? So when you say “We just need to replace 1 rep in the entire house with a Dem,” I don’t understand.
Now, I could be totally confused, it wouldn’t be the first time. If so, I apologize ahead of time.
The bill has been postponed indefinitely.
You amend the committee report in both chambers (the reports they give to the chambers). A majority is needed to pass that in both places and I believe that McNulty would have to approve it.
But it would only mean going back to Judiciary. So we’ll only see that, or only should see that, if DelGrosso flips.
He’s the one, btw, people. DelGrosso, who’s regrettably a party shill atm, was appointed to well known RINO Marostica’s seat. He’s the only one who wouldn’t lose a primary for the vote. Working both ways, he’s also probably the most vulnerable (on the committee) to lose to a Democrat.