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 25, 2016 03:39 PM UTC
36 Comments
HAHAHAHAHAHA! (repeat).
Of course they’ll protest, so I may be premature, but the sentiment’s right.
There's going to be hell toupee…
86 is a large number on a percentage basis.
Did you win 50 cents
?
The question about if his signatures count for others is a good one. Do they?
A flaming dumpster fire of a campaign..That's pretty accurate, I'd say.
6% more than were found valid the first time.
If Keyser remains off the ballot, are his valid signatures still invalid for the next candidate down the list?
Good question. We've never received a good answer on that.
I can imagine some upset candidates further down the line who lost 1400-1800 potential signatures per district without actually seeing a candidate on the ballot for the effort if so.
I believe they go in the same "no longer count" bucket as the signatures were still verified/counted, he just didn't have enough of them.
I'd agree.
The law seems pretty clear. The only reason for the processing "order" is that the second time the SOS finds a signature is when it's discovered to be invalid. In theory, I guess you could disqualify them from all petitions, even the ones that have already been certified, but that would disenfranchise those voters completely, which seems a bit harsher than just disqualifying subsequent signatures on petitions after the first they’re found on.
1-4-904. Signatures on the petitions
(1) Every petition shall be signed only by eligible electors.
(2) (a) For petitions to nominate candidates from a major political party in a partisan election, each signer shall be affiliated with the major political party named in the petition and shall state the following to the circulator: That the signer has been affiliated with the major political party named in the petition for at least twenty-nine days as shown on the registration books of the county clerk and recorder; and that the signer has not signed any other petition for any other candidate for the same office. [emphasis mine]
Seems fairly clear, but I could ask whether signing two invalidates:
1-the second signed if the date of signature can be ascertained,
2-the second petition based upon when they are turned in (which appears to be the present practice
3–Both signatures based upon language that just bans "signing any other petition for the same office," without specifying which of the rival signatures is invalid. Dorwe have case law on the subject, (see Dufuss vs. Dullard)
For clarity, I'll offer the Secretary of State's Rule 15 which describes the process the office uses to verify petitions.
15.1.3(d): Secretary of State or DEO staff will reject the entry if:
[…]
(12) For a candidate petition where an elector may sign only one petition for the same office, the entry is a duplicate of a previously accepted entry on a previously filed petition for the same office.
From what we understand, voters are not precluded from signing multiple petitions — it's not their responsibility to know the law.
This might be why Graham's campaign was much smarter in launching their petition drive earlier. It also could be an example of hiring paid petition collectors who are compensated by the number of signatures. Those collectors don't give a happy high flying damn about whether the petition signers have already signed another petition. Why should the signer or collector care? Few paid petition collectors follow the rules.
Keyser's campaign did significantly better than did Graham's on signature validity – 71% vs 57%. But that doesn't help when you're underwhelming in your signature collection overall. In addition to failing to meet the goal in CD-3, he squeaked by in CD-1 (1520), and wasn't very far above threshold in either CD-5 or CD-6 (1576 and 1575, respectively).
Not the sign of a winning campaign; the NRSC stepped in way too soon.
So, Keyser wins something. Signature validity. Give him a medal
Read that high signature validity percentage as indicative of Keyser's campaign's failing to get motivated bodies out to carry his petitions, and the weak efforts those gathers made canvassing …
Jon would have had 100% validity by being the only signer who signed his petition!
"Another medal to use as a prop in my next campaign? I'm in!" -Jon Keyser
BarbieKenJon says, "MathCounting is hard!" …(… oh please, please, please dear dog, let it be Moderatus that was somehow in charge of submitting signatures!!!)
FYI, here's the Statement of Insufficiency (PDF) for those who want to see the numbers.
Regarding Update #3: April 29th is the deadline for the Secretary of State to finalize the primary ballot but C.R.S. 1-1-113 allows Mr. Keyser to file a petition in Denver District Court challenging the Secretary's statement of insufficiency within five days. If the district court upholds the Secretary, Mr. Keyser may file a petition with the Colorado Supreme Court within three days after the district court issues its decision. The Supreme Court has the discretion to hear the case or refuse to hear it. Regardless of the deadline on the 29th, Keyser will be given his day in court.
Only if a judge stops the printing of the ballot to protect mootness, otherwise the law needs to be followed.
That said, even if Keyser gets a stay, then there is an argument to invalidate him under the Equal Protection Clause a la Bush v. Gore.
For safety's sake, Keyser would want to file the challenge, along with an emergency stay, before the 29th.
I'm assuming that in cases like this the campaign gets a list of the failed signature lines so they can dig in quickly to see what chances they might have?
It’s my understanding that they already did that, that was the curing period before they announced the results.
Right now they know they have real names collected by non-Republican gatherers which is a violation of the laws dictating which petitions are valid – I doubt any judge is going to side with Keyser or try to strike out election law.
But am I right that there is no "cure period" for him to scrounge more sigs?
Yes, V, you are probably correct here. There's no second chance.
Absolutely correct. You're done with this petition cycle.
That's correct – no cure period for petitioning on to the ballot for candidates. You get the job done or you don't, one shot.
The cure period is before the SOS announces the results publicly.
Blaha and Frazier are likely going through curing now.
I think what V is referring to is the cure period offered for initiatives where the supporters can get more signatures if they're deemed to have fallen short. That doesn't exist for candidates.
Actually, and I think weirdly, that's not quite true. Well, it is for the purpose of this discussion, but not for (U) candidates. Why that is, I have no idea.
1-4-912
In case a petition for nominating an unaffiliated candidate is not sufficient, it may be amended once no later than 3 p.m. on the eighty-fifth day before the general election or 3 p.m. on the sixty-seventh day before an election that is not being held concurrently with the general election. If a petition for nominating an unaffiliated candidate is amended, the designated election official shall notify the candidate of whether the petition is sufficient or insufficient no later than the seventy-fifth day before the general election.
Difference between primary and general elections, then – and between qualifying party candidates, who are automatically on the ballot, and unaffiliated candidates, who have to petition on. Good to know, in case we ever have the need to discuss it.
Darryl Glenn is looking tan, rested, and ready!
He went on 86 capture-sign missions, but no matter how many doors he kicked in he just couldn't find Republicans who wanted him on the ballot.
Another one bites the dust……
First, Gessler doesn't become Governor. Then Marco Rubio craters. And now this. Another one of Moderatus' Golden Boys bombs out….