Category Archives: Civil Unions/Marriage Equality

Colorado Democrats Delighted By GOP Primary Results

16
  by: Colorado Pols Wed June 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM MDT

A quick tour of coverage of yesterday’s primary elections, starting with the Fort Collins Coloradoan’s Patrick Malone, and the loss of the CD-2 primary by moderate Eric Weissmann to iconic “Tea Party” favorite state Sen. Kevin Lundberg–a loss despite overt support for Weissmann from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).

Weissmann trumpets a libertarian perspective that favored civil unions and abortion rights, while Lundberg adheres to more traditional, socially conservative ideals as an outspoken defender of traditional marriage between a man and a woman and opponent of legal abortion…

Lundberg’s victory and a handful of Republican primaries for seats in the state legislature that could be interpreted as an indication of where Colorado’s GOP voters stand sent a resounding message in favor of traditional conservative ideals. [Pols emphasis]

You can find evidence for a hard lurch to the right in Republican primary results around the state. In SD-23, the race to replace Sen. Shawn Mitchell was won by a distinctly fringy candidate named Vicki Marble, known by some locals as the “New Dan Maes“–over an arguably much more experienced and qualified public servant, Rep. Glenn Vaad. In HD-19, Amy Stephens crushed an upstart bid from fellow Rep. Marsha Looper, reaffirming her conservative credentials by helping kill civil unions legislation again this year. After becoming vulnerable in the wake of her support for the health care exchange bill in 2011, Stephens bet her political career on stopping civil unions. She was amply repaid with support from her friends at Focus on the Family, even as her actions do political damage elsewhere.

And from one of the most-watched primaries in the state this year, the Craig Daily Press reports:

[Rep. Randy] Baumgardner easily defeated incumbent state Sen. Jean White, of Hayden, on Tuesday night in what proved to be one of Colorado’s more heated Republican primary elections this cycle…

Baumgardner said he plans to move past a recent story published by multiple news outlets, including national outlets and the Steamboat Today, that a sex offender was living at his home in Hot Sulphur Springs. FOX 31 Denver originally reported that the sex offender was unregistered but later clarified he registered in April.

“I think that’s a nonissue,” Baumgardner said about the story. “We’re going to move forward.”

…White said she was disappointed when she and about 30 supporters watched the results trickle in from the HiWay Bar in Hayden.

“I was disappointed that his lies trumped my truths,” she said about Baumgardner after she conceded the race. “I’m proud of my campaign. I can stand proud. I stood on my principles. I worked hard. I ran a clean campaign. And unfortunately, the lies won.”

The ugly fight between Rep. Randy Baumgardner and Sen. Jean White, primarily driven by Sen. White’s vote for civil unions legislation, is a metaphor for everything that’s wrong with the Republican Party in Colorado today. Sen. White’s vote for civil unions reflected the overwhelming public support the issue now enjoys among Colorado voters–including many Republicans. Rep. Baumgardner, on the other hand, helped filibuster the civil unions bill at the end of this year’s session. Democrats have already told reporters that they plan to invest more resources in the SD-8 race this fall than they ever would have if Sen. White had won.

In just about all of these cases, Republicans made choices that could do more harm than good in the long run. Even if some of these candidates, like Vicki Marble, win in November, they could emerge as boat-anchor embarrassments to their caucus when the legislature convenes in January. Some safe districts could become pickups, like SD-8. In the case of CD-2, Republicans never really thought they could beat incumbent Rep. Jared Polis, but the moderate Weissmann might have forced Polis to pay attention to his own re-election over helping others. Thanks to Lundberg, the CD-2 race is now an asset to Democrats for branding Republicans as crazy.

Bottom line: Colorado GOP chairman Ryan Call has talked a great deal about the need for his party to field reasonable candidates with intelligent viewpoints–on immigration as one example. Other top Republicans like Mario Nicolais have warned their colleagues that long-term minority status awaits the GOP if they are unable to break out of their wedge-issue boxes.

Better luck in 2014, we guess.


Full story: Colorado Democrats Delighted By GOP Primary Results

2012 GOP Primary Prognostications

7
  by: Colorado Pols Mon June 25, 2012 at 4:52 PM MDT

Here are our thoughts on four bellwether GOP primaries taking place in Colorado tomorrow.

SD-8, Baumgardner vs. White

Sen. Jean White says that the tough primary she is facing in Senate District 8 isn’t supposed to be happening. Rep. Randy Baumgardner, Sen. White claims, promised he would not challenge her in a primary only to renege on that promise. Sen. White’s vote in favor of civil unions legislation has left her vulnerable to nasty attacks from national conservative activist groups that may nonetheless be effective in a right-leaning primary. Rep. Baumgardner is by most estimates favored to win this race with civil unions playing a major role, despite a late-breaking scandal regarding an unregistered sex offender living in his home. It’s an irony that could leave the SD-8 GOP primary ripe for late-night talk show monologue ridicule.

A Baumgardner primary win over Sen. White would also mark a final end to claims from Republicans that Democrats beset them with “misogynist” maps intended to take out women GOP legislators. Obviously, they would be demonstrably doing a fine job of that themselves.

HD-19, Stephens vs. Looper

The incumbent-on-incumbent primary between House Majority Leader Amy Stephens and Rep. Marsha Looper has been an ugly and divisive battle, highlighted by accusations of heresy to conservative doctrine–mostly on the part of Stephens, related to her on-again-off-again backing for widely supported health insurance exchanges that Republicans, amped up to oppose anything and everything associated with  ”Obamacare,” could not distinguish from the federal reform.  The fight broke along unusual lines in the GOP coalition, with Stephens proudly waving the Focus on the Family banner and Looper rallying the Tom Tancredo faction. If Stephens holds off Looper’s challenge, it’s a sign that the GOP House leadership’s desperate fight against civil union legislation was a win with social conservatives in HD-19.

CD-2, Weissmann vs. Lundberg

Relatively unknown businessman Eric Weissmann has lined up GOP insider support in his primary against conservative state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, but Lundberg has done more to organize Republicans who are likely to vote in primaries. Lundberg’s support in evangelical Christian communities in Larimer County could give him the decisive edge against the oddly lackluster Weissmann, who hasn’t fought back with aggressive media buys or field work that we’ve seen.

Whoever prevails faces an uphill battle to catch incumbent Jared Polis in a district that, while more competitive on paper, retains solidly Democratic voting patterns.

CD-5, Blaha vs. Lamborn

Three-term incumbent Rep. Doug Lamborn faces the unexpected fight of his career against the upstart but strong newcomer Robert Blaha. The GOP primary is virtually decisive in CD-5, so conservative primary voters aren’t faced with the realistic possibility of a loss of the seat of a Democrat.

As we’ve recounted in this space repeatedly, Lamborn has failed to endear himself to his Republican constituents despite an impeccably loyal voting record. Doug Lamborn fails to thrive because at a certain level, it is not enough to be a loyal automaton who carries the flag without ever doing anything to distinguish himself–while committing a variety of blunders and slip-ups that make even the most loyal Republican wince. It doesn’t matter if Robert Blaha is any better than Lamborn, though he’s impressed more people than we would have expected when we first heard of him.

If Blaha wins, he’ll be one small sign that checks against incompetence and ideological blindness to incompetence do exist–even if none of our other bellwethers say so.


Full story: 2012 GOP Primary Prognostications

2012 Primary Preview: Part 2 (State House Races)

13
  by: AndrewBateman Sat June 23, 2012 at 7:26 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



With just a few days left in Colorado’s 2012 Primary season, Let’s take a look at the battles that are being fought and where the players currently stand.

Just like in Part 1, covering the CU Regent and Senate Races, there are a few things to acknowledge up front first:

1) Ballots have been out and available for casting for a while now. Many of those likely to vote already have, and there may be little (if anything) besides GOTV that candidates can do to legitimately benefit or harm their campaigns.

2. I am not going to touch the federal races. There are already a million people doing analysis on these races and at least 95% of them know more about the dynamics of a federal race than I do.

3. I am going to spend more time on the races that are both interesting and important. For instance, it doesn’t really matter which Republican wins in HD4 because they have a 0% chance of beating Dan Pabon. And while there is technically a Republican primary in HD21, one of the candidates has only raised $500, while the other has brought in over $8000. So there really isn’t much analysis necessary.

4. I don’t claim to be an expert on these races or any kind of “insider”. I’m just giving one observer’s perspectives. Please feel free to contribute your own.

That said, enjoy my little list. This batch covers the State House races. Follow the link above to get to the CU Regent and State Senate races.

House District 1

DEM Jeanne Labuda vs DEM Corrie Houck

to take on the winner of

GOP John Kidd vs GOP James Wildt

The only double primary in the state right this year. But only the Dem’s race counts. In this area of SW Denver, Democrats are 42% of the active voters, so there is no realistic chance of the GOP nominee winning the big one.

Jeanne Labuda is out-spending her opponent by a 2-1 margin and has the incumbent advantage. She clearly knows that the Primary is the only races that matters and she’s not holding back. She’s got a serious paid canvass operation and by election day, every voter will have her her name and seen her picture many, many times. Not to mention the fact that most of them have voted for her several times before and will not have any serious reason to change their mind now.

Bottom Line: That said, Houck is putting up an admirable fight taking on three-term incumbent Labuda, but ultimately, Labuda is going to be elected to another term in the House.

House District 4

GOP Stuart Siffring vs GOP David Dobson

to take on DEM Dan Pabon

The two GOP candidates, combined, have spent only about $500. Rep. Pabon, meanwhile, has spent nearly $14,000 and hasn’t even really started campaigning, yet.

Bottom Line: This race falls squarely in the “lost cause” category for the GOP. Pabon will be handily re-elected.

House District 5

GOP Ronnie Nelson vs GOP Matthew Zielinski (write-in candidate)

to take on DEM Chrisanta Duran

Bottom Line: See HD4. Nelson will win the primary as the only name on the ballot, but Duran will be re-elected in November.

House District 12

DEM Mike Foote vs DEM Angie Layton

to take on GOP Russ Lyman

This race is interesting. Foote has actually out-raised Layton by nearly a 4-1 margin. ($40k vs $11). But Layton has loaned herself $25k to make up for the major split.

Each candidate has a long list of major supporters, and this is going to be a really tough fight. Mike Foote has the on-paper experience as the Deputy District Attorney, while Layton has (besides plenty of money to self-fund with) a long background of non-profit law and activism and was a volunteer lobbyist at the capitol for the last 4 years.

Bottom Line: This one is tough to call. Layton’s style of in-your-face activism excites democratic voters, especially in the boulder region, who may choose to overlook the more established candidate in favor of some fire. But Foote is no slouch. He is raising serious money and spending it with discipline. If I had to put money on either, it would be him.

House District 19

GOP Marsha Looper vs GOP Amy Stephens

To take on ACN Timothy Biolchini (No Democrat running)

What can I say about this race that everybody doesn’t know already. It is a bitter fight between two powerful House Republican incumbents. Both of them are extraordinarily well funded ($76k for Looper and $79k for Stephens) and are doing their best to out-conservative each other.

Looper won top line at assembly and, even though Stephens is working hard to stress her work to oppress gay people by preventing a vote on civil unions, the stigma of Amy-Care remains.

Bottom Line: It will be close and it will be ugly, but I’m calling this one for Looper.

House District 21

GOP Lois Landgraf vs GOP Albert Sweet

to take on ACN Shawn Halstead (No Democrat Running)

Bob Gardner left a gaping hole in this district that the candidates are trying desperate to fill and Landgraf looks more than poised to take it. Her fundraising advantage is huge, ($6,700 vs $475) plus she is pumping her own money in as well. This is a winner takes all primary with only token opposition from the ACN candidate, who hasn’t raised a penny.

Bottom Line: It would take a pretty serious miracle for Sweet to pull off a win here. Landgraf will serve in the House next year.

House District 22

GOP Justin Everett vs GOP Loren Bauman

to take on Dem Mary Parker

Everett won big at the district assembly with 58% and barring something extraordinary, he will win the primary. It’s really hard to lose when you’ve raised ten times as much as your opponent. Plus he has name recognition in the district, having run previously for the State Senate (he lost in a Primary to Mike Kopp).

Bottom Line: Everett will advance to a rougher-than-usual general election fight against Mary Parker.

House District 39

GOP Polly Lawrence vs GOP Lu Ann Busse

to take on DEM Carla Turner

This is the quintessential Establishment Republican vs Tea Party race. While Lawrence (The owner of an enormous construction company) has been scooping up endorsements from big GOP names in Colorado, Busse is her Glen Beck style rabble-rousing, social conservatism, and accusations of media bias into play.

Lawrence is winning in fundraising, but not by a lot ($56k vs $50k). Busse is running almost her entire campaign by attacking Lawrence and working hard not to spend too much time talking about her own credentials (Although having worked for the 9-12 “the government going to take your guns and kill your babies” Project would probably play well with primary voters.)

Bottom Line: While this one is tough to call, the backing of McNulty, Penry, Harvey, MUrray, and others should carry Lawrence across the finish line on election day. But as we’ve learned before, the rabid tea-party candidates should never be underestimated. Anything could happen here.

House District 41

DEM Jovan Melton vs DEM Terry Todd

To take on Independent JM Fay (No Republican Running)

Update: JM Fay did not meet the criteria to get on the ballot. So the Democratic nominee will be the only name on the ballot.

I’m not going to write a lot about this race simply because of how entrenched in it I am. I volunteer for Jovan Melton and was in the race myself up until the March Assembly.

Candidate Todd is running to replace his term-limited wife in the State House, while she runs for the vacant Senate District 28 seat. Melton entered the race about six month’s after Todd, but overtook him in both support and fundraising quickly.

To date, Melton has raised $24k to Todd’s $16k. Melton has raised three times as much ($9k vs $3k) from within the city of Aurora and took top line at the district assembly by 61-39.

Bottom Line: Every objective indication says that Melton will win. But this race continues to make the must-watch list for a reason, it could easily go either way.

House District 48

GOP Jeffrey Hare vs GOP Stephen Humphrey

to take on… no one. No one else is running.

This is the House seat formerly occupied by Glen Vaad, who is now running for the State Senate. Hare has not only been ahead of his opponent in fundraising (Despite rejecting special interest PAC and SDC money), but his PR choices seem to be more on par with winning candidates.

However, Humphrey is picking up big endorsements like Ken Buck and Scott Renfroe, not to mention Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and others.

Former Senator Ken Gordan and his group, CleanSlateNow.org, is putting resources into this race to help elect Hare. He and his organization have made it their goal to support candidates who turn down special interest money, regardless of party, and residents all over this district have received repeated phone calls from volunteers of CleanSlateNow, urging them to vote for Hare, which may just be the extra advantage that he needs to win this election.

Bottom Line: These two split the assembly vote by 51-49 and the Primary is likely to be just as tight.

House District 60

GOP Jim Wilson vs GOP Steve Collins

to take on DEM Pier Cohen

Steve Collins is a self-described libertarian and vintage motorcycle collector with little to no government experience. He has struggle in this race to give voters a reason to vote for him or donate (he’s raised just over $1000).

Meanwhile, Jim Wilson (James on the Ballot) boasts 40 years as a public school teacher and superintendent as well as dozens of titles and memberships that make him look to be the only experienced candidate in the race.

Wilson also offered up this quote for the Book Civica Guide to the 2012 Colorado Statehouse Elections, “Because of my having survived 40 years in public education as a Republican, I have a track record at the local, state, and national level of working with all kinds of people and getting things done without sacrificing my conservative beliefs.” Wilson’s biggest vulnerability is that, despite having a significant fundraising advantage, he is spending almost none of it. However, this is more likely a sign of confidence about his chances.

Bottom Line: Wilson has the local name recognition, support, and credentials to win this race without breaking a sweat.

House District 61

GOP Debra Irvine vs GOP David Justice

to take on DEM Millie Hamner and IND Kathleen Curry

Debra Irvine has one of the most diverse resumes of any candidate in Colorado. She is currently an professional artist, but has also worked as a German Instructor, Ski Instructor, Hotel Inventory Manager, Suicide Hotline Counselor, DOD Sub-Contractor, and Air Force Academy Clerk. She went to High School in Germany, College in Maryland and holds two graduate degrees from the University of Colorado and the University of Denver. She has run for the State House before and served a term as the chair of the Summit County Republicans.

David Justice, on the other hand, offers little to potential supporters. He has refused to submit information to the various groups that publish voter guides and his website is actually a blog on which he spends more time complaining about how much he hates being a candidate than he does actually justifying his candidacy.

Whoever wins this primary (Irvine) will find themselves in a crowded General Election. Former Democrat Kathleen Curry is running once again as an independent. She help the seat previously, but was denied a spot on the ballot when she left the Democratic party too late in 2010 and the courts upheld the decision to keep her name off of the ballot. Nonetheless, she continued to campaign as a write-in candidate and almost won the seat. So the DEM and GOP candidates certainly have something to worry about.

Bottom Line: Debra Irvine will win the primary easily, but has a tough road ahead of her to make it through the General Election.

House District 63

GOP Lori Saine vs GOP Mike Mazzocco (Write-in candidate)

to take on DEM Tim Ericson

Running as a write-in candidate takes a lot of resources and Mike Mazzocco just doesn’t have it. He has an impressive website (even though he makes his attacks against his opponent more prominent than promoting himself) and he would probably have had a good chance at winning if he had met the deadlines and got himself on the ballot.

Lori Saine fell into some controversy shortly after winning an exclusive spot on the ballot at the district assembly with 62% of the vote, when it came to light that she had just been through both bankruptcy and foreclosure. But as the sole name on the ballot, she will likely still fly through the primary without issue.

Bottom Line: Saine will win the primary and (given the dynamics of the district) will likely win the general election as well.  


Full story: 2012 Primary Preview: Part 2 (State House Races)

2012 Primary Preview – Part 1 (CU Regent and State Senate)

25
  by: AndrewBateman Thu June 21, 2012 at 6:04 AM MDT

(Interesting forecasts – promoted by Pita)



With just a few days left in Colorado’s 2012 Primary season, Let’s take a look at the battles that are being fought and where the players currently stand.

A few things to acknowledge up front first:

1) Ballots have been out and available for casting for a while now. Many of those likely to vote already have, and there may be little (if anything) besides GOTV that candidates can do to legitimately benefit or harm their campaigns.

2. I am not going to touch the federal races. There are already a million people doing analysis on these races and at least 95% of them know more about the dynamics of a federal race than I do.

3. I am going to spend more time on the races that are both interesting and important. For instance, it doesn’t really matter which Republican wins in HD4 because they have a 0% chance of beating Dan Pabon. And while there is technically a Republican primary in HD21, one of the candidates has only raised $500, while the other has brought in over $8000. So there really isn’t much analysis necessary.

That said, enjoy my little list. And feel free to jump in with your own knowledge and insight on the various races. The first batch covers the CU Regents race and State Senate races. I’ll catch up with the District Attorney and State House races before the weekend.  

CU Regent At-Large

GOP Matt Arnold vs GOP Brian Davidson

to take on DEM Stephen Ludwig

There has been plenty of coverage about the embarrassing display of self-destruction that is the Matt Arnold campaign. And it seems that Republicans are eager to rid themselves of Matt Arnold with enough time for voters to forget about him before November. Davidson has raised $37 to Arnolds $11k. But what’s more telling is the last two reporting periods. Davidson raised over $12k, while Arnold raised only $2k. Compare that to Feb-April, where Davidson raised $6k to Arnold’s $5.5 and you can see how much the tide has changed.

Bottom line: Expect Davidson to take this one in a landslide.

Senate District 8

GOP Rep. Randy Baumgardner vs incumbent GOP Sen. Jean White

to take on Dem. Emily Tracy

The first important thin to know about this race is that neither of the candidates has been elected to the seat before. Jean White was appointed to fill her husband’s seat when he resigned to work for Gov. Hickenlooper. The second is that this Senate district is dominated by Republicans, but motivated by moderates. Jean White was rated one of the most liberal members of the GOP caucus and voted with the Dems in favor of Civil Unions. She is also mopping the floor with Rep. Baumgardner in terms of fundraising. She’s raised $55k to his $21. This is a prime example of one of the few places where being a frothing-at-the-mouth, red-meat conservative doesn’t actually work for a GOP primary.

Correction: This paragraph was corrected to remove an inaccurate description of the geography of the distict.

Bottom Line: Expect White to win her first election and return to the Senate for a full term.

Senate District 10

GOP Rep. Larry Liston vs GOP Owen Hill

to take on… nobody. No democrat is running and the ACP candidate has yet to raise any money.

I really can’t describe this race any better than Ernest Luning of the Colorado Statesman did last month:

“Liston, a veteran lawmaker termed out of his House seat, faces an aggressive challenge by nonprofit executive Owen Hill in a bid to move up to the more rarified chamber. No newcomer to politics himself, Hill came within a few hundred votes of unseating Democratic Senate Majority Leader John Morse in a neighboring district in the last election and clobbered Liston at the GOP assembly, taking 64 percent of delegate votes to win top-line on the ballot. Are primary voters content with Liston’s business-friendly brand of Republicanism, or are they itching for the more confrontational style Hill would bring to the Capitol? As much as any race in the state, this contest could help define what direction the Colorado GOP takes in coming years.”

Liston has pulled ahead by quite a bit in fundraising since the above was written and seems to have the momentum to win it.

Bottom Line: Liston seems to everything going for him, but this is one that is tough to call. It could easily go either way.

Senate District 21

GOP Francine Bigelow vs GOP Matthew Plichta

to take on Dem. Jessie Ulibarri

This is one of those races that doesn’t really matter. Winning now simply means losing in the general election to Ulibarri, who has raised more in the last two weeks than the two GOP candidates have raised in the entire campaign… combined.

Bottom Line: Jessie Ulibarri has this one in the bag. The GOP candidates are just fighting for the chance to carry the conservative flag into the fire.

Senate District 23

GOP Rep. Glen Vaad vs. GOP Vicky Marble

to take on Dem. Lee Kemp

If you only looked at the fundraising, you might be tempted to think this race is neck-and-neck. But if you really want an indicator of who is going to win this race, simply google it. Go on, go type in “Colorado Senate District 28″ right now. You will find pages upon pages of news, websites, and mentions of Vicki Marble and next to nothing about State Rep. Glen Vaad. And if you actually go to their websites (once you manage to find Vaad’s), you will find a mountain of big name endorsements for Marble, while Vaad a train-wreck of a website that offers little for the curious voter.

http://www.votevaad.com/

http://www.vickimarble.com/

Bottom Line: Marble is running this race to win it, while Vaad doesn’t seem to know what’s about to hit him. I’m calling this one for the scrappy outside challenger.

Senate District 28

GOP John Lyons vs GOP Art Carlson

to take on Dem Nancy Todd

This race is interesting. It’s relatively low budget (Each of the candidates have raised less than $3000). But they are fighting it hard. Art Carlson has put his resources into yard signs, plastering every corner of the district. Meanwhile, Lyons is putting his money on paper, dropping lit at doors and targeted mailboxes. But with so little for either to spend, awareness among voters is likely low. In the end though, whoever wins will be looking forward to taking on State Rep. Nancy Todd and her warchest of $23,000, and that’s after she officially kicked off her campaign just two weeks ago.

Bottom Line: As much fuss as Rep. Nancy Todd has been making over this race and trying to paint it as “competitive”, it simply isn’t. At least not with the candidates that the GOP has managed to offer up. Neither of the GOP challengers is getting any kind of support from the larger party or from anyone else, really, and Todd’s name ID alone gives her a massive advantage. Rep. Todd will be Sen. Todd soon enough. No one who seriously looks at HD28 can expect anything but a decisive win for the Democrats.

Senate District 35

Dem. Crestina Martinez vs. Dem. Armando Valdez

to take on GOP Larry Crowder

The one and only Democratic Party Primary in this post and one of only 5 statewide. The money is weird. Martinez has outraised Valdez by 3-1, but she’s not spending it. She’s spent only $3k on the race while Valdez has spent over $8k. When I asked some people I know in ther area to explain the told me that Valdez is simply not performing at any level that presents a threat to Martinez’s campaign, so she’s saving up her money for the General Election. Hopefully, for her sake, that doesn’t prove to be a mistake. That said, I hope that, if Valdez does lose in this race, that he comes back and runs for something again one day. He is a smart, well-spoken young man with a lot of potential. And the people of Southern Colorado would do well to use him o the fullest of that potential.

Bottom Line: Martinez won by nearly 20 points at the County Assembly and seems poised to win big again next Tuesday. But with so little money being moved, anything could happen.  


Full story: 2012 Primary Preview – Part 1 (CU Regent and State Senate)

Randy Baumgardner’s Got Some ‘Splaining To Do

50
  by: Colorado Pols Fri June 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM MDT

FOX 31′s Eli Stokols reports that a certain law-and-order Colorado Republican representative, in the thick of a cutthroat primary, has got a problem on the home front. A big problem.

State Rep. Randy Baumgardner, who is challenging Sen. Jean White in a Republican primary for her senate seat, is benefiting from mailers questioning White’s values after she voted in favor of civil unions.

But FOX 31 Denver has confirmed that Baumgardner, R-Hot Sulphur Springs, is currently harboring an unregistered sex offender in his home, a decision that has his neighbors questioning his own values. [Pols emphasis]

“This is an ignorant, arrogant individual who has no place in public office,” one of Baumgardner’s constituents wrote in an email to FOX31 Denver. “If you are running on morals, then have some.”

…He was arrested at Baumgardner’s home on April 12 for failing to register as a sex offender.

Baumgardner paid the $2,000 to bail him out.

Rep. Randy Baumgardner told FOX 31′s Stokols that the sex offender in question, Michael K. Frierson, “was arrested but no charges were filed.” This ignores the rather obvious problem that one must be convicted of a crime in order to be required to register as a sex offender. In fact, Mr. Frierson pled guilty to a charge of sexual assault on a victim more than ten years younger–a crime committed when he was 25, meaning the victim was 15 years of age or younger. Also, Mr. Frierson, who Rep. Baumgardner claims has never been “anything but respectful” while living in his home, has a mile-long rap sheet on a variety of other charges.

Here’s Michael Frierson’s most recent arrest report, and his lengthy CBI arrest record.

We’ll be interested in seeing if the law-abiding GOP primary voters in SD-8 find this worse than Sen. Jean White’s vote for civil unions. We’d objectively have to say they, um, ought to.


Full story: Randy Baumgardner’s Got Some ‘Splaining To Do

Looper/Stephens Campaign Reaches New Depths in “Hate The Gays” Competition

71
  by: Arvadonian Mon June 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM MDT

(Surprised? Neither are we. – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Marsha Looper’s campaign has reached new depths in her attempt to stay in the State Legislature by outing her own son as gay.

Looper’s campaign, in an attempt to show that she loathes the gays even more than her primary opponent Amy Stephens, has issued a press release saying that even though her son is gay, she stood opposed to civil unions.  Looper’s campaign, through her campaign manager, Lana Fore-Warkocz, stated, “God is truly to be praised for Marsha Looper because she also has a homosexual son (and did not let that influence her decision to oppose equal rights for her son and other gays and lesbians).

Looper then promptly distanced herself from her campaign manager’s actions by saying she was “very disappointed” in Fore-Warkocz’s actions.  She did not, however, fire her….

Full Story:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…


Full story: Looper/Stephens Campaign Reaches New Depths in “Hate The Gays” Competition

Nasty Mailers Hit SD-8 GOP Primary

12
  by: Colorado Pols Wed June 6, 2012 at 8:31 PM MDT

With a hat tip to Lynn Bartels of the Denver paper, here is the mailer attacking SD-8 incumbent Republican Sen. Jean White, in a tough primary battle against fellow Republican Rep. Randy Baumgardner–we were also forwarded a copy of these yesterday. Hide your eyes, Junior:

As Bartels reports, this is primarily an attack on Sen. White’s support this year, as well as during last year’s legislative session, for civil unions legislation–with the visual of two men kissing intended to viscerally shock conservative SD-8 primary voters. The fact is, some of those conservatives will probably object more to this “suggestive” material appearing in their mailbox at all, since Sen. White’s position on civil unions is hardly a secret. So there’s that.

But what’s particularly interesting in this mailer is the second accusation, that Sen. White voted “yes to give taxpayer funds to abortion-on-demand provider Planned Parenthood.” This basis for this claim, noted at the bottom of the mailer, is

That is, the same Long Bill budget that Rep. Randy Baumgardner, and every member of the GOP-controlled Colorado House except Rep. Chris Holbert voted for! The same budget House Republicans are trumpeting as their shining 2012 achievement! That takes chutzpah, folks.

But before we get all factual, note that the intended audience won’t read past the guys kissing.


Full story: Nasty Mailers Hit SD-8 GOP Primary

Colorado Pols Mailbag #2

11
  by: Colorado Pols Thu May 31, 2012 at 8:34 PM MDT

You Asked Alva, and we’ve answered. Last Friday we put out the call for a new mailbag, and Pols users submitted several questions in the comments section and via email.

Got a question for Pols? Email askalva@coloradopols.com. In the meantime, the answers to your latest questions (some serious, others…not so much) are after the jump.

Voyageur starts us off with a serious question…

In general, how is Pols doing? I notice a distinct falloff in the number of comments and number of users logged in. Are twitter and other social media cutting into us?  With the folding of the Rocky and continue diminishing of the Post, the need for a viable media like Colorado Pols is critical. What’s the outlook?

We’re actually doing quite well, with traffic continuing to increase relative to other years. There has been some reduction in comments because 2012 is the first time in a decade that we haven’t had a statewide race on the ballot — at this point in 2010, we had multiple Senate candidates for both Democrats and Republicans – but that just means we have more people lurking and reading but not commenting. You’ll see some positive changes at Pols very soon that will only make Pols more awesomer.

‘A lurker on ColoradoPols’ asks via email…

Dear ColoradoPols,

What is M Miklosi doing to capitalize on M Coffman’s gaffe? I would think he would have ads at this point with quotes from Obama (“I believe in the American worker,” and the one about America not being able to be great w/out a strong middle class) with overlays of Coffman’s statement that he and Obama don’t share the same vision of America. I mean, the quotes are already part of the Obama campaign ads; can’t he use them?

I don’t live in that district, so don’t have a say, but it seems to me M Miklosi has been handed two gifts-one through redistricting and another through M Coffman’s loose lips, as they called them during the WWII-and that he’d do SOMETHING to sink M Coffman’s ship. His statements on 9News made him look like M Milquetoast.

We assume you are referring to “Joe” Miklosi, unless the CD-6 candidate has a twin brother named Matt. Miklosi would no doubt love to put some ads up on TV using Coffman’s quotes against him, but his campaign doesn’t have the money to run ads this early in the cycle. He needs to save his money for September and October.

MADCO asks…

  • Why does Pols hate R’s?

    We have no problem with R’s. But we’ve always found the Z to be a little presumptuous.

  • Aren’t you all just one guy anyway?

    Much like the “Lord of the Rings” saga, no single man (or woman) could wield the power of Colorado Pols and not be destroyed by it.

  • How come some posters get paid more than others?

    • Not everyone gets the same check. Some people get those huge checks that you get for winning a golf tournament or something. Others get regular checks. Some people get checks with rainbows and unicorns on them.

    RedGreen asks…

  • Why doesn’t the Big Line include Colorado’s presidential vote? Isn’t that a more interesting question than how badly Brandon Shaffer will lose?

    That’s a good idea. We will add the Presidential race to the Line.

  • Why are so many Denver Pols posts about Aurora politics?

    Because it would be silly to post stuff about Denver politics on a site called Aurora Pols.  

  • Do you think Colorado Pols will still be around in three or four years, or is social media taking over the need for conversations and news dissemination that Pols has filled?

    • We’ll celebrate our 8th birthday in December. We’ll still be here in four years – only bigger and better. And with mayonnaise.

    ProgressiveCowgirl asks…

  • Do you approve of organizations posting their news and events here, not just individuals posting op-ed and news commentary style blogs?

    We don’t really restrict any kind of political postings, and we’ll continue to be open to any individual, group or organization that abides by the rules.

  • Why did you put a user-generated content disclaimer on ArapaGOP’s promoted diary when you don’t put that disclaimer on most promoted diaries?

    It wasn’t a disclaimer – it was a more of a highlight. We encourage people from all political perspectives to post on Pols (say that three times fast).  

  • What’s your favorite breakfast food?

    Meatloaf.

  • Do you do any marketing/advertising for Pols, or is it all word of mouth and Twitter hashtags?

    We’ve never done any sort of paid advertising or marketing, but we’re considering it. We’ve spread organically, kind of like a virus. The good kind of virus.

  • Which elected officials are lurking here and not posting?

    We don’t know who anybody is, quite honestly. Despite what conspiracy theorists and outright nutjobs might tell you, we don’t have any way to know who is reading or posting at Colorado Pols unless the user provides that information intentionally (like if they sign up for an account with an email address that includes their real name). There are thousands of registered users at Colorado Pols – far too many for us to track even if we were interested in doing so (which we aren’t).

  • Green Lantern vs. Spiderman?

    • Green Lantern, because he can fly.

    VanDammer asks…

    Why are Penalty Box sentences so weak, and why aren’t Front Page Editors allowed to dispense justice on content offenders?

    The idea of the Penalty Box is really to just sit an offender in the corner until they can cool down and play nice (or play by the rules). We don’t ever like to ban users unless it’s really necessary, but anything that would justify an excessively-long stay in the Penalty Box would likely be enough to get you banned outright.

    DavidThi808 asks…

    If you could have one bill passed & signed (state level), what would it be? Assume it will be passed in next year’s session but you have to pick now, before you know who will control the House.

    There are a lot of potential answers to that question, but we’ll go with fixing an issue that we believe is at the core of political inaction in Colorado: Compensation for elected officials.

    Colorado legislators should be paid more than $32,000 per year. Yes, we know that this is “technically” a part-time job, but in order to serve in the legislature most people must have some other source of income. It’s hard to find an employer who would let you just take six months off every year, which excludes the vast majority of the population from being able to serve. By raising the salary to, say, $50,000 per year, Colorado would attract a more diverse and qualified batch of candidates every two years, which in turn would lead to a more diverse and qualified bunch under the Gold Dome.

    The salaries for Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer and Secretary of State should also be raised. Colorado’s Attorney General, a statewide office, makes about half as much as a District Attorney in this state. That doesn’t make any sense.  

    Raymond1 asks…

    What if any measures could Governor Hickenlooper take to grant gay and lesbian couples some of the rights that civil unions would grant? I’m thinking of a few:

    1. Create a domestic partners registry that would grant no rights on its own, but would create a status that the below measures could enhance.

    2. State employees can put same-sex partners on insurance (do we have that already? I don’t think we do).

    3.  Any hospitals in Colorado, as a condition of coverage in any state-run insurance (state employees, public benefits recipients etc.) must allow registered domestic partners to enjoy visitation and health care proxy rights.

    4. Put on a state website, maybe the same one with the new domestic partners registry, a sample will and power of attorney for same-sex couples to use.

    Others?

    We can’t help you much here. Polsters, unite and answer this question!

    Fidel’s dirt nap asks…

    If ArapaGOPs brain were made entirely of veal…How much would it be worth, and would he construct better arguments on this blog?

    Is there a going rate for veal? Can you mail excess veal to someplace that will send you cash in return (like those Gold-for-Cash infomercials)? You should be able to put your 401k plan into veal.


    Full story: Colorado Pols Mailbag #2

    But Hick says you can drink it, right?

    26
      by: JeffcoBlue Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:18 PM MDT

    (It tastes sort of like Tab – promoted by Colorado Pols)



    Update: KJCT reports up to 2,000 gallons of tasty, refreshing frack fluid may have spilled.

    KREX Grand Junction Channel 5:

    A tanker truck carrying thousands of gallons of fracking chemicals rolled over on Highway 139 at mile marker 32 Monday afternoon.

    Trooper Nate Reed with the Colorado State Patrol says the driver of the tanker truck was headed south on Highway 139 toward Grand Junction when he lost control, causing the truck to flip onto its right side.

    Officials with the Lower Valley Fire District say approximately 50 gallons leaked into a nearby stream before they dammed the area to prevent it from being contaminated any further.

    The EPA is on scene according to KREX, and they seem to be taking this very seriously for a substance Gov. John Hickenlooper says you can drink and that he has personally taken a swig of. Why doesn’t Hickenlooper head to the scene of this fracking fluid spill for a taste test?

    But then he might have to explain how there are lots of different kinds of fracking fluids, and most of them aren’t the Potemkin drinkable CleanStim fluid that Halliburton executives take shots of with gullible governors. I doubt Hickenlooper will be taking any swigs of the fluid they actually spilled.

    Sorry, I know he still deserves praise for holding his ground on civil unions, but Hickenlooper’s fracking foolishness should not be forgotten. We need leadership on many issues.


    Full story: But Hick says you can drink it, right?

    Robert Ramirez Sets Bar For Legislative Flakiness

    18
      by: Colorado Pols Mon May 21, 2012 at 9:42 PM MDT

    Freshman Rep. Robert Ramirez of Westminster has been represented in a number of stories about the failure of civil unions legislation this year as an example of a Republican who would have voted for the bill had it reached the House floor. As just one example, before the end of the regular legislative session from the Catholic News Network:

    The bill has already passed the Colorado Senate. The Republicans control the State House by a one-vote margin, but civil unions supporters believe they have enough Republican votes to pass the bill.

    Along with Nikkel, Republican Reps. Robert Ramirez of Westminster and Kevin Priola of Henderson have said they will vote in favour of the bill if it reaches the House floor…

    And here’s Rep. Ramirez on the radio in late April:


    RAMIREZ: I am looking at voting for it if I get the opportunity.

    But as you know, Rep. Robert Ramirez never got the opportunity. The civil unions bill, both the regular-session Senate Bill 2 and the special session House Bill 12s-1006 were killed by Republican leadership. And judging by this report from the Colorado Statesman Friday, we really wonder if Ramirez is relieved to have avoided being asked to keep or break his word:

    One day after House Republican leadership killed a bill that would have recognized same-sex civil unions in Colorado, supporters of traditional marriage lined up on the west steps of the Capitol to articulate their message that same-sex marriage and civil unions are wrong, and that the only way to halt the “breakdown of marriage” is to elect leaders who support protecting marriage as being between one man and one woman…

    Also in attendance at the rally were Reps. Robert Ramirez, R-Westminster, [Pols emphasis] Libby Szabo, R-Arvada, and Carole Murray, R-Castle Rock, as well as Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs.

    Ramirez attempted to shift the focus back to jobs and the economy, saying that the mission of the legislature was lost during the session to wedge social issues.

    So much for that, eh?

    This is the same Rep. Robert Ramirez who was quoted in the New York Times last fall lamenting his party’s poor relations with Hispanics, yet who faithlessly pledged to work with proponents of the ASSET legislation for better tuition rates for undocumented students.

    Is such unusually shameless double dealing just how Robert Ramirez rolls? This isn’t an entirely sarcastic question. We’re starting to wonder if Ramirez just doesn’t think being consistent on the issues matters. Too far down the ticket, nobody cares, we know consultants who really say this.

    For a guy who won his seat by 197 votes, we would be very nervous giving that advice.


    Full story: Robert Ramirez Sets Bar For Legislative Flakiness

    How Republicans Treat an Independent Thinker: Nikkel Bullied Mercilessly

    37
      by: ProgressiveCowgirl Sat May 19, 2012 at 9:12 PM MDT

    An interesting FOX31 story details a bullying campaign targeting BJ Nikkel before and after her courageous vote to move Senate Bill 2 forward.

    After she cast her vote in favor of civil unions two weeks ago, Nikkel was shouted down by religious protestors at her church in Loveland the following Sunday; and the next week, as the bill continued to move through the legislative process, a rickety old pickup truck circled the Capitol carrying homemade billboards advising “Nikkkel” – yes, it was spelled with three “k’s” – that she was going to hell for her vote.

    Mind you, this is the party so averse to “political correctness.” Maybe it’s time to redefine that term. After all, most things to which the phrase currently refers–gender neutral language, avoiding hate speech, etc.–are simply “correctness,” with nothing especially political about it. A counter-proposal follows:


    Politically Correct [adj.]: A vote, buzzword, action, or concept deemed by the GOP establishment to be a moral obligation of all Republican representatives, above and beyond their own consciences and capacity for independent thought. A Republican who refuses to vote according to this “politically correct” ideology will be shamed, bullied, harassed, threatened, intimidated, and told she is going to Hell. She will be bullied in church, at home, and at work, until and unless she falls back into step with the far-right leadership.

    There, now. Isn’t that much better than confusing “correctness” with “political correctness?” Not being a racist is correct. Voting to keep your own gay son a second-class citizen so that Frank McNulty doesn’t make a mean face at you is politically correct.


    Full story: How Republicans Treat an Independent Thinker: Nikkel Bullied Mercilessly

    Coloradans For Freedom’s other duty: apologetics

    11
      by: JeffcoBlue Sat May 19, 2012 at 6:48 PM MDT

    ( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



    I’d like to begin by offering genuine thanks to Mario Nicolais, Kelly Maher, and the other Republicans who formed Coloradans for Freedom for the purpose of providing a “conservative case” for passing civil unions legislation. I believe that their efforts were sincere, and that they really did want civil unions to pass this year with GOP support.

    But civil unions did not pass. The GOP killed it again. Coloradans for Freedom did not succeed.

    Today in the Denver paper, Mario Nicolais wrote a post mortem of the battle over civil unions from his perspective. I see no reason to link to the Denver paper; you can find his guest column in the Perspectives section. While he pledges to continue supporting civil unions next year, the point of his op-ed is to cover for fellow Republicans despite the killing of civil unions at Republican hands. While I respect Nicolais for his personal support, that’s simply not acceptable.

    Republicans are the reason civil unions died, and they will pay for it in November.

    While defending fellow Republicans from the consequences of their failure to pass civil unions, Nicolais makes a large number of factual errors that call his judgment into question.

    Nicolais blames Democrats for not bringing up civil unions when they were in charge of the House. In addition to unwittingly admitting that Republicans consistently oppose civil unions, Nicolais forgets that 2006-2010 was the immediate aftermath of the failure of 2006′s Referendum I. Democrats worked on other legislation such as designated beneficiaries during this period, because the GOP would have castigated them for trying to pass civil unions “against the will of the voters” – which the GOP DID ANYWAY in 2012. Polling on civil unions shows the dramatic changes in support for civil unions have occurred in just the last few years.

    Also, under this logic, why does the GOP keep trying to repeal Obamacare after Colorado voters rejected Amendment 63 in 2010? IOKIYAR, Mario!

    Nicolais says that he will “work to ensure…Republican majorities include pro-equality majorities,” calling out hopeful examples in the Republicans who did support civil unions this year: BJ Nikkel, Don Beezley, Cheri Gerou, and the three women GOP Senators who support civil unions year after year. In addition to these, there are at least a few other Republicans, like Robert Ramirez, who would have voted yes if the bill had gotten to the House floor.

    Even dyed in the wool partisans like me have to acknowledge it: there are Republicans who support civil unions, and their numbers are growing.

    But this year, the fact that there were enough Republicans in the House to pass civil unions, in committee and on the floor, didn’t matter. It didn’t matter because those same House Republicans elected leadership that refused to allow the will of the majority of this chamber to be carried out!

    For me, that’s the end of the line for Nicolais’ pro-GOP apologetics. Yes, there are Republicans who realize that their current course will permanently sever their party from the mainstream. Yes, there are Republicans who will do the right thing, for political or even moral reasons.

    None of it matters if the Republican leaders they choose stop them cold. If civil unions does cost the Republicans seats and control of the House, some of the Republicans who lose their jobs might have voted yes on the issue that will defeat them. Think about that.

    Sorry Mario, but this session proved a Republican majority and equality for LGBT citizens of Colorado are indeed mutually exclusive. By attempting to shield his party from this reality, Nicolais does Republicans, and the issue of LGBT equality, a terrible disservice.

    I know what it will take to pass civil unions. It’s not excuses for a GOP majority that refuses to.


    Full story: Coloradans For Freedom’s other duty: apologetics

    Do KLZ radio hosts know the difference between informing people and killing them?

    9
      by: Jason Salzman Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:05 PM MDT

    (If it starts with “Do KLZ radio hosts know…” the answer is generally predictable. – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)



    I spend a lot of time criticizing conservative talk-radio hosts, and some people think I’m beating my head against the keyboard.

    Too bad for me. Here I go again.

    I can’t accept that KLZ host’s Ken Clark and Jason Worley agree with Sen. Ted Harvey when he says, on the radio, that Sen. Morgan Carroll’s bill requiring hospitals to post a list of services that they do not provide is like “putting yellow stars on the door of religious hospitals.”

    Even if you disagree with her bill, proposed legislation like Carroll’s and Nazi Germany have zero in common with one another.

    You may think it’s ridiculous that I even write the above paragraph, but that’s what we bloggers have been reduced to, particularly because the legacy media is mostly ignoring the Colorado GOP’s Nazi talk this year.

    The Nazis killed people and Carroll’s bill informs them. Carroll’s bill would’ve helped consumers make a purchase. That’s it.

    So, if you’re Ken Clark and Jason Worley, how could you possibly listen to this exchange without objecting?

    Sen. Kevin Grantham (at 16:30 in the podcast):  ”Ken, I kind of wonder if Patrick Malone would have made the same statement, or did even ask the same question to Rep. Carrol when she was running her Senate Bill 93, wondering whether she is going to have a legacy… or she’s worried about her legacy as a bigot for what she’s doing to hospitals and to private religious hospitals.  Doesn’t that make her a bigot as well?” 

    Asked to explain, Grantham said that SB 93 would require “religious hospitals to post the services they do not provide,” which would be a requirement targeted specifically at catholic hospitals. This is not correct, since it would apply to all hospitals, but Grantham maintained that the bill was targeted specifically at abortion issues and other life issues.

    Later, in a discussion about how the Democrats’ strategy on civil unions will backfire, Harvey said:

    Sen. Ted Harvey (at 39:32): I don’t like to repeat the negative and talk about what their talking points are.  And what my talking points are is that this is an attack on religion.  This is [an] attack on the right of conscience, and the ability of people to exercise their faith the way that they believe is best for them. And I think that the people of faith are seeing this for what it is, and it’s a direct attack on them and they are now not sitting on the couch, not sitting in the pews, and just trying to live their lives and take their kids to school, and go to work and do those kinds of things. They are truly scared of what this is we’re talking about. We’re talking about an entire party in the United States that thinks it’s okay to force people of religious faith to do something against their religion. And that’s never happened in the United States before.  You heard Kevin [Grantham] talking about Senate Bill 93 where it forced hospitals to put on their door a yellow star, for all practical purposes.  To say, ‘this is who we are, and we have to tell you who we are.’  Never in American history have we had a major political party say that that’s okay.  And that is what you are seeing right now. And people of faith across the country  are rising up and saying, ‘No, not in our country.’ SB-93 is like putting yellow stars on the door of religious hospitals.


    Full story: Do KLZ radio hosts know the difference between informing people and killing them?

    Second Sine Die

    12
      by: JeffcoBlue Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:24 PM MDT

    (It ain’t over ’til it’s over, then started again, then over again. – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)



    Gov. John Hickenlooper’s full statement on the end of today’s special session.

    DENVER ­- Wednesday, May 16, 2012 – Gov. John Hickenlooper today thanked the General Assembly for using the special session to successfully address unfinished business that died last week without debate or consideration by the House of Representatives.

    Lawmakers this week passed a water projects bill that will create jobs in communities across Colorado and an Unemployment Insurance bill that will assist business in saving money and improving the program. Lawmakers also passed a law to cut red tape for businesses, and they appropriately had the opportunity to fully consider other important legislation.

    “It was important for the General Assembly to finish consideration of important bills that died last week when the House recessed to avoid voting on civil unions,” Hickenlooper said. “With the exception of civil unions, each of the bills we put on the special session call received an open debate and a final vote just like they deserved.”




    Three important pieces of legislation were approved this week by the General Assembly:

    A water projects bill

    The legislation will create jobs and protect water supplies for towns and agriculture through $61 million worth of loans and grants from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB).

    “These projects are critical to communities and regions across the state, and we commend lawmakers for their broad support,” Hickenlooper said. “This bill pays for a variety of projects that improve existing reservoirs, secure and protect water rights for Colorado and assist in flood prevention, among other important work. The measure also translates to good jobs in many rural communities.”

    The measure appropriates $6.6 million for grants to 11 programs and studies affecting water supplies and flood prevention statewide and $55 million for water infrastructure projects and water purchases in the San Luis Valley, the Animas-La Plata project near Durango and at Chatfield Reservoir southwest of Denver. Passage of the bill also leverages additional funds from water providers and other organizations necessary for completion of the projects.

    Dollars granted for programs and studies in the bill account for nearly 50 jobs, while more than 100 additional jobs are tied to the water infrastructure projects.

    “Passage of the water projects bill was imperative for Colorado. Sustenance of our diverse economy and growing population depends on our ability to continue addressing our needs for water, whether it be for our strong agricultural sector, our world-renowned environment and wildlife or for our vibrant cities and towns,” said CWCB board chairman John McClow. “We thank state lawmakers and Governor Hickenlooper for ensuring the success of this bill, and the investment of severance tax and Construction Fund dollars in these absolutely vital areas.”

    “It is extremely important to the water community that the projects bill passed, because of the various components of the bill and their importance to so many stakeholders,” said Eric Wilkinson, General Manager of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. “Those include, among others, the restoration of the various operating funds for flood monitoring and stream gauging, and the landmark cooperation between Colorado Parks and Wildlife and private reservoir owners to better manage the water supplies in the San Luis Valley.”

    One major piece of the projects bill includes funds for rehabilitation of the Rio Grande and Beaver Park reservoirs in the San Luis Valley. Travis Smith, a member of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Superintendent of the San Luis Valley Irrigation District, said passage of the bill was “essential” in acquiring the funding that solidifies a partnership between the irrigation district, which owns the Rio Grande Reservoir, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, which owns Beaver Park Reservoir.

    “It’s the model of the public-private partnership in getting existing reservoirs rehabilitated for multiple beneficiaries,” Smith said. “It maintains compliance with the Rio Grande Compact, helps the agricultural communities and the water users and has benefits for recreation, the environment and sportsmen.”

    An unemployment insurance bill

    The legislation will help return Colorado’s Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund to solvency by allowing employers to receive credit within their individual accounts for repayment of principal-related bonding amounts. The rationale for proceeding with this bond issue is that the state stands to benefit financially from the favorable differential between the low interest rates which would be paid on the bonds and current federal rates.

    “The people of Colorado, employers and employees alike, expect an efficient, well run, and dependable Unemployment Insurance program,” Hickenlooper said. “While more remains to be done to improve the UI program overall, passage of HB 112S-1002 is a key first step in ensuring that Colorado employers receive the benefit of positive experience rating and premium rates for pitching in to return the UI Trust Fund to financial solvency.”

    This legislation was supported by the business community.

    “HB 1002 will ensure that bond repayments will be reflected on an employers’ experience rating to allow for lower premiums. It is important to CACI that Colorado employers see relief in their UI premiums based on the huge increases they have experienced during the last 3 years. This bill will provide some much needed relief,” said Loren Furman, senior vice president of state and federal relations for the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry.

    “Passage of this bill ensures the state can maintain solvency of the unemployment insurance trust fund in the most cost effective fashion for Colorado employers,” said Kelly J. Brough, president and CEO of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.

    “We are pleased that the administration and legislators are working with the business community to save Colorado employers millions of dollars in aggregate through prudent management of the unemployment insurance trust fund,” said Sara Cassidy, director of the Colorado Competitive Council.

    A bill dealing with Special Mobile Machinery Fleets

    The law changes registration procedures for Special Mobile Machinery Fleets to allow owners of 10 or more pieces of rental special mobile machinery to register their fleet once per year.

    “This legislation cuts red tape for business by creating a streamlined collection process for counties,” Hickenlooper said.

    The General Assembly also rejected some bills after finally being able to fully debate and vote on the proposed legislation, specifically: penalties for persons who drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; creating “benefit corporations” in Colorado; and submitting to the registered electors of the State of Colorado an amendment to the Colorado Constitution repealing provisions deemed obsolete.

    The bill to authorize civil unions died again without debate or vote in the full House, despite clear indications that a majority of state Representatives supported the measure.

    “We wanted to see a debate about civil unions on the floor of the House and a vote by all the legislators,” Hickenlooper said. “That’s what Coloradans deserved and would have kept faith with our constitutional obligation to support equal rights. We are disappointed that didn’t happen.

    “It is also perplexing that a simple measure to clean up language in the Constitution died in the House after receiving a two-thirds vote in the Senate.”

    The special session was paid for with General Fund dollars. In the current fiscal year, the Legislature had set aside approximately $350,000 for 15 days of special session if needed. A bill that originated in the House this year (HB 12-1301) sends any unspent and unencumbered General Fund dollars appropriated to the Legislature to a Legislative Department Cash Fund. This cash fund can be used only for general expenses of the Legislature, as well as for redistricting purposes.

    ###


    Full story: Second Sine Die

    The Sad Story of Don and Dee Coram

    41
      by: Colorado Pols Wed May 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM MDT

    UPDATE: FOX 31′s Eli Stokols:

    Rep. Don Coram, who cast the deciding vote Monday to kill the revived civil unions bill during this week’s special legislative session, told FOX 31 Denver Wednesday that he stands behind his vote, despite criticism from his gay son…

    “If you’re going to lead, you need to sometimes set aside your personal preferences and do what you were sent here to do,” Coram continued. “This situation in my district is very, very clear from the calls I had coming in that this was an issue my district didn’t support.”

    But some Democrats have taken issue with his “voting my district” defense, noting that Sen. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, who represents many of the same constituents as Coram, voted in favor of civil unions when it cleared the Senate near the end of the regular legislative session.

    —–

    9NEWS’ Kevin Torres reports, though most following the story of the killing of civil unions legislation at the hands of Colorado House Republicans are already well aware of this sidebar:

    When a Republican representative from Montrose voted against the bill to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples on Monday evening, many people dubbed him the “man who killed it.” After his vote, Rep. Don Coram acknowledged he has a gay son, which prompted his son to question his father’s decision…

    For most of his life, Dee Coram ignored his father’s politics and kept his distance. But when the civil unions bill popped up, Dee Coram decided to have a heart-to-heart with his father.

    “He did say at that time if it goes to the floor, I will vote no. But at that time his stance was the committee should send it and let the House vote on it,” Dee Coram said… [Pols emphasis]

    “He was given an opportunity here to actually be a leader and I guess he didn’t take that leadership role. It’s disappointing to see something like this that he said should have gone to a house floor for a vote. Essentially, he prevented that from happening,” Dee Coram said.

    The story from 9NEWS’ Kevin Torres makes it clear that Rep. Don Coram and his openly gay son Dee Coram are still close even after this vote, and that Dee never expected his father to be a “yes” vote on final passage of civil unions. We can see where, under less politically volatile circumstances, Rep. Coram might indeed have agreed with his son that the bill deserved a vote in the full House. But with the issue exploding in the face of Republican House leadership and national media coverage, “politically volatile” became a quaint understatement.

    To us, this story once again illustrates the terrible pressure that was put on “reliable” Republicans by their leadership to fall in line and ensure that the civil unions bill died by whatever means necessary. After what happened at the end of the regular session, there was no need for niceties–it’s not like Republicans could look any worse. There’s little question GOP Speaker Frank McNulty had conferred with the Republican members of the House State Affairs Committee prior to assigning the bill there, to ensure that they wouldn’t give him any surprises like Rep. B.J. Nikkel did during the regular session. The reason one is appointed to the State Affairs Committee to begin with is that leadership is confident of their loyalty.

    So when the time came, Rep. Coram “did his duty”–when in different circumstances, we can’t help but think in his defense, he might have acted differently? Obviously we don’t know he would have, but the story as told by his son obligates us to leave a small window of doubt.

    And if that’s how it all went down, you have to feel kind of sorry for both of them.


    Full story: The Sad Story of Don and Dee Coram