May 16, 2011 09:43 PM UTC

Assessing Hickenlooper's First Session

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

As the dust settles on the first session of the 68th Colorado General Assembly, one of the more discussable points seems to be the role of Colorado’s new Gov. John Hickenlooper in legislative battles–both his interventions, and the moments where he chose not to. As the Pueblo Chieftain’s Patrick Malone reported Saturday:

“He’s a shrewd cat, no doubt about it,” said Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp, R-Littleton. ”I think the ‘aw shucks’ is genuine, but behind that ‘aw shucks’ is a very smooth political actor.”

Even Senate President Brandon Shaffer and House Speaker Frank McNulty, who have been able to agree only on their distaste for each other in recent weeks, found common ground in their admiration for Hickenlooper and the work he did this legislative session.

“I have no complaints against the governor,” said McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch. “The governor has always been straight-forward in his dealings with us, and I’ve never had to worry about him keeping his word.”

…Hickenlooper’s sway with lawmakers was most evident Wednesday, the final day of the legislative session, when he demanded that Democrats and Republicans find a solution to their differences over payday lending. Otherwise Hickenlooper threatened to order an immediate special session that would have kept the Legislature at the state Capitol for at least three more days. His stance prompted House Republicans to back down in order for the session close on time.

Last Wednesday’s payday lending showdown, and anticlimactic resolution, was definitely an example of Hickenlooper stepping decisively into a legislative fight that was spinning out of control–we still haven’t heard what it was that motivated Speaker Frank McNulty to pull that stunt, but it seems clear he didn’t expect Hickenlooper to call his bluff. Perhaps the other major example of Hickenlooper intervention was his rare flash of public anger at Majority Leader Amy Stephens, after her foolish anti-“Obamacare” amendment to the health care exchange bill threatened to undo months of bipartisan negotiations. In both cases, pretty much only Hickenlooper’s rarely used clout could have produced the quick resolution seen.

Which is a very good reason to rarely use your clout.

On the other hand, Gov. Hickenlooper’s main contribution to the budget debate–the proposing of huge and painful cuts to, in his words, “start a conversation”–had mixed results. Hickenlooper’s proposed budget might have started a conversation about real solutions, but Hickenlooper’s own repeated assertions that there was “no appetite” for any such measure helped deflate momentum as fast as it could build. As the budget debate in the legislature unfolded, Republicans often hid behind Hickenlooper’s budget proposals, using them as excuses for continued cuts even as revenue forecasts improved. Because Hickenlooper allowed this, and also because the cuts were ultimately lessened by (modestly) recovering revenue, at least part of the “teachable moment” Hickenlooper’s stark budget proposal offered was not realized.

We’re working on our larger analysis of winners, losers, and key players from this year’s legislative session for later in the week, wherein Hickenlooper’s role will factor heavily. In the meantime, we’ll throw the question open for debate: had you been Gov. Hickenlooper, and had this been the divided legislature you were dealt to work with in your first year as governor, what might you have done differently?