Category Archives: John Suthers

John Suthers, Walker Stapleton back Ryan Call for CO GOP chair

10
  by: Donald Johnson Sat March 5, 2011 at 11:42 PM MDT

Ryan Call is picking up some of the most important endorsements possible in his run for chair of the Colorado Republican party, according to this news release:

Attorney General Suthers and State Treasurer Stapleton join Legislators and Party Leaders from Across the State in Endorsing Ryan Call for State GOP Chairman

Denver – Ryan Call is pleased to announce his first list of campaign supporters.

“I am truly honored for the support of these Republican leaders from all over Colorado,” said Call. “From fellow county party activists to statewide elected officials, the range of experience these supporters possess underscores my intent to work with both local and elected leaders to gain large Republican victories in 2012.”

The following are supporters of Ryan Call for Colorado Republican State Party Chairman:

Attorney General John Suthers

State Treasurer Walker Stapleton

CU Regent Sue Sharkey

State Senator Nancy Spence

State Senator Ellen Roberts

State Senator Jean White

State Representative/Assistant Majority Leader Mark Waller

State Representative Bob Gardner

State Representative Spencer Swalm

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert

District Attorney Russ Wasley

Congressional District 1 Chairman Gabriel Schwartz

Congressional District 2 Chairman/Summit County Chairman Debra Irvine

Congressional District 3 Chairman Ralph Walchle

Former Arapahoe County Chairman/Bonus Member Dave Kerber

Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder/Bonus Member Nancy Doty

Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder Pam Anderson

El Paso County Treasurer/Former Clerk and Recorder/Bonus Member Bob Balink

Former El Paso County Chairman Wayne Williams

Former Adams County Chairman Clark Bolser

Former Arapahoe County Chairman Nathan Chambers

Former State Republican Party Chairman Don Bain

Former State Republican Party Chairman Bob Martinez

State Republican Party Treasurer/Former State Solicitor General Richard Westfall

 


Full story: John Suthers, Walker Stapleton back Ryan Call for CO GOP chair

On radio, Suthers vows to fight so gay married couples don’t get CO benefits

11
  by: Jason Salzman Fri February 25, 2011 at 3:07 AM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Today’s Denver Post reported that Attorney General John Suthers didn’t have much to say about the Obama Administration’s decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

But Suthers discussed Obama’s decision for about 15 minutes on KOA’s Mike Rosen show this morning.

He told Rosen he doesn’t want Colorado to be forced to recognize gay marriages, performed in states like Massachusetts. This, he said, might require our state to give Colorado’s marriage benefits to gay married couples who move here from states like Mass. Suthers said on the radio:

“We’re going to defend Colorado’s right to say, this is what we think marriage is, and we would not like to have to recognize marriages in other states because that flows for Colorado benefits too, Mike. We’re not just talking about federal benefits. There are statuses of being married that have advantages in Colorado law too.”

Rosen failed to ask Suthers what Colorado marriage benefits he didn’t want same-sex married people to have. It was my understanding that DOMA, under section 3, tried to prevent gay married couples from receiving federal marriage benefits, like being able to be buried together in veterans’ cemeteries.

So I asked Suthers’ Communications Director, Mike Saccone, which Colorado marriage benefits Suthers was referring to:

“What he was thinking of was the joint filing of taxes,” Saccone told me. “To the extent there are other benefits that mention marriage, Amendment 43 [which bans gay marriage in Colorado] could affect them too.”




Full story: On radio, Suthers vows to fight so gay married couples don’t get CO benefits

Obama’s DOMA Decision Affects Colorado

11
  by: ohwilleke Wed February 23, 2011 at 10:25 PM MDT

(Suthers loses his cover – promoted by Colorado Pols)



President Obama has decided to direct the Justice Department to stop defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act against challenges in federal courts, challenges in which Republican Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has controversially filed an amicus brief on behalf of the state defending the law despite the fact that Section 3 applies to the rights of same sex marriage couples only with respect to the federal government.

Before this, there was a symbolic difference, but no practical difference, between a civil unions bill, like one being considered in Colorado’s General Assembly this sesion (SB 11-172), and a same sex marriage bill (which Colorado’s constitution currently prohibits at Article II, Section 31: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” added by Initiative in the 2006 election).  Now, legally married same sex couples will have far more rights under federal law that same sex couples with civil unions (at least until they are legally married in a state that grants same sex marriages to non-residents).

Learning a lesson from the decision of California’s leaders in the Prop 8 litigation, where the state refused to appeal a trial court finding that Prop 8 was unconstitutional (the standing of the ballot measure proponents to appeal in that case has been certified to the California Supreme Court), President Obama has directed the Department of Justice to stop defending the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Justice Department has said:

The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman: . . . The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. . . . [T]he Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ‘ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President’s and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3. . . .

Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government, when applying federal law, shall disregard legal state law marriages that are not between one man and one woman.

The key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act state that:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The decision does not by itself affect Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act which provides that the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution does not extend to same sex marriages. Thus, state, local, territorial and Indian tribe governments are not federally required to honor same sex marriages that are valid in other states.

Will President Obama’s Position Be Sustained In the Courts?

President Obama’s decision is likely to stick. Generally, the only parties with standing to participate in a case where a same sex couple alleges that their rights have been violated by Section 3 of DOMA are the federal government and the couple(s) bringing the lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court, particularly in recent years, has construed taxpayer standing (alleging the federal funds are used for an unconstitutional purpose) and citizen standing (alleging that the federal government is acting unconstitutionally) very narrowly.

I’ll have to look later at the standing of members of Congress to speak for the federal government in litigation or intervene in lawsuits attacking the constitutionality of a statute. The general rule is that the Justice Department is the sole representative of the U.S. position. But, federal courts have the authority, although not necessarily the obligation, to appoint a lawyer to argue for a position like that constitutionality of a law or the rights of pro se parties, that is not represented by a party in court.

To speak for Congress, per se, or even one house of Congress, would ordinarily require the passage of a resolution by Congress or at least a house of Congress. But, members of Congress who sponsored or voted for legislation might be viewed by a court as suitable intervenors to argue to a court for a position that no party to the suit is willing to advance.

On balance, it seems unlikely that Congressional advocacy will cause a Court to rule in favor of the Constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA when the Justice Department and legally married same sex couples are both parties in the case and arguing that it is unconstitutional.

An IRS ruling last year holding that domestic partners in California were entiteld to split income for federal income tax purposes due to community property principles foreshadowed the changing position of the Obama administration on this issue.

Consequences

From a practical perspective, some of the main consequences of the decision are that gay married couples can file tax returns with married filing jointly status (and receive all of the benefits of married couples for estate taxation purposes), that same sex married couples qualify for federal immigration law treatment of spouses, and that same sex married couples can receive Social Security survivors benefits and spousal Veteran’s benefits. The Veteran’s benefits issue looms large now that Congress has repealed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

Also, while not quite spelled out by this ruling, the implication seems to be that a same sex couple that is legally married in any state will thereafter be treated as married by the federal government, even if the state in which they live does not recognize same sex marriage. Since some states do recognize same sex marriage (and allow non-residents to be married in their state), that means that same sex couples that go to those states to be married and then return to their home states can receive all of the federal government benefits of marriage.

Another tricky issue is the impact that the decision on Section 3 of DOMA will have on state administered programs that are funded by the federal government and governed by federal rules, such as Medicaid (where marriage matters because a spouse’s assets are relevant to eligibility for Medicaid financed nursing home care) and TANF (i.e. the main mean tested welfare program).

In addition to undermining the efforts of state governments to deny federal benefits of marriage to same sex couples in their own states, the determination also increases the stakes in the civil union v. gay marriage debate in the states. Until now, this has been a strictly symbolic debate. A civil union bill that creates as the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law, but doesn’t call it marriage (such as one pending in the Colorado General Assembly right now) would not constitute marriage under federal law, while one that calls the relationship marriage would have that effect.

Thus, states are left with multiple options including: (1) disallow both civil unions and same sex marriages, but acknowledge that couples with legal sex sex marriages from other states may receive federal treatment as married, (2) allow civil unions but not same sex marriage, which gives copules state law marriage rights but denies couples federal treatment as married until they get legally married in another state, or (3) allow same sex marriage.

Also, while Section 2 of DOMA does not require states to recognize same sex marriages from other states, it also does not prohibit them from doing so out of comity. In many states, the issue of when comity should recognize other state’s legal acts when the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution does not require it has been left to the courts rather than being made a subject of legislation. Thus, judges could choose, influenced but not bound by the Section 3 of DOMA interpretation, to honor out of state same sex marriage even though the constitution and federal law do not require them to do so.

Civil unions have been a sensible legislative objective for same sex couples in many states, like Colorado, where the state constitution has been amended to prohibit same sex marriage, but not more broadly to prohibit civil unions or domestic partnerships of same sex couples as well. But, there will be increasing pressure to actually call this marriage legislatively, and as courts evaluate the issue.


Full story: Obama’s DOMA Decision Affects Colorado

Former Supreme Court Justice Demolishes Suthers’ DOMA Meddling

8
  by: Colorado Pols Thu February 10, 2011 at 9:23 PM MDT

In the editorial pages of today’s Denver newspaper, you’ll find a must-read takedown of Colorado Attorney General John Suthers by former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky, over his recent amicus brief in support of the federal government’s case regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, Suthers joined this case in Massachusetts initially claiming that he was defending “a Colorado constitutional provision.”

We were contacted the morning this story published by a source knowledgeable of the case who explained that this claim by Suthers is false–as we said then, there are several sections of DOMA in question, and the lawsuit in Massachusetts pertains to federal benefits for same-sex couples that are already recognized by the state in question–not the section of DOMA that pertains to the authority of states to accept or reject marriages from other states.

The next day, the AG’s office admitted that the Massachusetts case, however decided, “technically wouldn’t invalidate our law.” And today, Dubofsky rips apart the original claim that Suthers’ actions would defend Colorado law, then explains that if his second explanation is true, and he joined the brief in support of “states rights,” then he actually joined the wrong side of the case.

To be honest, we’re aware that this issue isn’t going to rank at the top of every Colorado voter’s priority list, even though the demographics of the electorate are making it less of a controversy with each passing day. Faced with a huge budget crisis and so many other challenges, there’s just a lot of headline-grabbing issues out there competing for importance.

But Suthers sure seems to think gay marriage, and opposing it wherever he can, is awfully important–even to the point of making questionable claims about why he is involved at all.


Full story: Former Supreme Court Justice Demolishes Suthers’ DOMA Meddling

PPP Polling for President in Colorado

12
  by: Colorado Pols Sun February 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM MDT

That’s the message we got last night–automated polling firm Public Policy Polling is surveying Colorado voters on the 2012 presidential elections. The poll begins with favorables on President Barack Obama, then compares Obama in a generic matchup between against a “conservative” or “Tea Party” Republican. After that, it’s a head-to head matchup between Obama and potential GOP contenders Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney. For good measure, respondents are asked at the end for their opinion of Gov. John Hickenlooper, Attorney General John Suthers, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Obviously, a poll this far from anything election-related can’t really tell us much, except that its existence shows national players are looking at Colorado very early in the 2012 cycle–PPP selected Colorado based on a vote on their website, which is itself frequented mostly by fellow pollsters and political junkies. With Colorado broadly considered a key presidential battleground next year, our state’s voters can expect to be inspected, dissected, and put on display as often as possible from here on out.

And admit it–even though you know it doesn’t mean much, you are curious, aren’t you?


Full story: PPP Polling for President in Colorado

Post should call on moonlighters like Stapleton to follow Hick’s lead

19
  by: Jason Salzman Fri February 4, 2011 at 6:50 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Kenny Be summed up Scott Gessler’s moonlighting problem nicely in Westword last month, depicting Colorado’s Secretary of State with a phone on each ear.

If you’re The Denver Post, the two phones in the cartoon would have caught your eye, because the newspaper waged a multi-faceted campaign to get Bill Ritter to turn over his personal cell-phone records for public review-with his personal calls excised.

Ritter refused to do this, even though he apparently conducted state business on his personal cell phone, because he said it was an invasion of privacy.

The Post got pretty upset at Ritter, as was its custom at the time. There weren’t any front-page editorials on this issue, but it hopped up and down on the editorial page, calling for the release of his cell-phone records, and even filed a lawsuit that drags on to this day. (Two decisions have gone against The Post, and the daily has appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.)

Ritter has come and gone and, unfortunately, we never reviewed the state calls he made on his personal cell-phone.

But The Post’s campaign paid off.

John Hickenlooper  told a conservative journalist that he’ll use two cell phones, one for conducting the people’s business and another for personal and campaign work.

He’ll make records of calls on his “government cell phone” available for public review. And he plans to have a neutral party review the records from his private phone to make sure he’s not hiding state biz there.

Former Post Editorial Board member and current Post reporter Chuck Plunkett discussed Hick’s cell phone policies on Jon Caldara’s “Devil’s Advocate” TV show on KBDI. (The name of the show should actually be “The Devil,” dropping the “Advocate” part, but who am I?)

Caldara and Plunkett couldn’t say enough good things about Hick’s cell-phone policies. And a Post editorial patted the new gov on the back.

Recent news cycles have illuminated other state officials whom The Post should now call on to follow Hick’s lead.

I’m thinking of Colorado’s proliferating crop of moonlighting public officials. Among other things, we need to be sure that their moonlighting doesn’t blend their two jobs together on their personal cell phones.

So that means these guys: GOP Attorney General John Suthers, who’s teaching law classes; Secretary of State Scott Gessler, if he starts down the moonlighting path again; and Dwayne Romero, whom Hick appointed to lead the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade.

Of most concern, when it comes to transparency, is Colorado Treasurer Walker Stapleton. He’ll be raking in to $150,000 per year, at $250 per hour, working for his old real estate firm.

This works out to 600 hours or over 11 hours per week. That’s over quarter time, based on a 40-hour work week. Of course, Stapleton’s weeks will likely be longer, but it’s a lot of time.

I mean, with 600 hours of out-of-state business to conduct, Stapleton will have to be on the phone so frequently that some state matters could slip onto his personal phone, despite his best intentions. He might just get mixed up about whose clock, I mean, phone he should be on, as he makes quick calls for his own business and then the people’s.

I asked Stapleton’s Communications Director Michael Fortney whether his boss would be following Hick’s example on the cell phone issue.

He said he’ll have one cell phone for personal use and another for matters relating to his state work.

“He’s going to do his state business either on his land line or state-issued cell phone,” Fortney told me. “He won’t do state business on the personal.”

Fortney has not yet discussed with Stapleton whether he will let a neutral party review records for his personal cell phone, as Hick says he’ll do, and weed out anything that should be made public.

The Post, which has waged the good fight on the cell phone issue, should stay the course, with a focus mostly on Stapleton, but all the moonlighters should be urged to follow Hick’s lead.

Here’s video of Plunkett discussing the issue with Caldara and Todd Shepherd.


Full story: Post should call on moonlighters like Stapleton to follow Hick’s lead

Reporters should ask Suthers: If your anti-gay legal brief isn’t anti-gay, what is it?

15
  by: Jason Salzman Wed February 2, 2011 at 6:37 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has offered different explanations for filing a legal brief in support of a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that bars gay and lesbian married couples from receiving federal marriage benefits. Reporters should find out what Suthers is really thinking.

Massachusetts is suing the federal government to enable gay couples, married there, to receive the same benefits given to other married couples, and Suthers’ office joined the feds, via an Amicus brief, in defending DOMA against the Massachusetts challenge.

On KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show, Suthers said Monday there was no anti-gay-marriage political agenda behind his action. It’s about federalism, he claimed.

He went on to say he’s trying to stop the feds from forcing Colorado to recognize a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts.

“I’m getting all kinds of grief about filing an amicus brief in Massachusetts’ constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act,” said Suthers on the radio. “And it’s very apparent to me that people are attributing political motives to me, being anti-gay marriage, when in fact I think this is another case that really bears upon federalism….We don’t want Massachusetts to be able to impose on the federal government or the state of Colorado its definition of marriage.”

So what’s motivating Suthers? The gay-marriage part? Or the states-rights/federalism part?

It’s confusing, especially to people like Brian Moulton, Chief Legislative Council for the Human Rights Campaign, which has been tracking the issue.

He told me that, in response to questions about the case, Suthers’ office has sent emails to constituents stating that Suthers decided to get involved in the Massachussets case to defend Colorado’s Amendment 43, which defined marriage here as between a man and a woman. Moulton said that Suthers’ email stated that his office is obliged by law to defend Colorado’s laws, and that’s what he is doing.

Moulton told me:

“So certainly, at least initially, he was telling his constituents that he was defending Colorado’s marriage laws, and that was the initial response he gave to The Denver Post when they inquired about it. It’s all fine and good to say you’re concerned about federal involvement with the states….But certainly that was not the initial response of the AG’s office, and I’m finding it hard to square the circle. It’s hard to know which of the messages to believe.”

It’s particularly hard to square the circle because the case that Suthers has decided to join isn’t really about gay marriage. It’s about whether gay couples, who are already married in Massachusetts, have a legal right to federal marriage benefits.

We’re talking about stuff like allowing gay couples to be buried together (OMG, what will they do?) in a veterans’ cemetery and to get spousal benefits under Medicaid, according to Moulton.

Is Suthers, on behalf of the people of Colorado, saying gay couples from Massachusetts should not be allowed to be buried together in a veterans’ cemetery? We don’t know because neither Caplis nor Silverman asked him. But fortunately, Silverman promised on the radio to have Suthers back on the show to talk more about the DOMA issue.

Here are some questions Caplis and Silverman should ask him (And for you skeptics, these are the types of questions they ask regularly on the show.):

First, there’s the question above about how Suthers would feel if he successfully prevents gay veterans, married in Massachusetts, from being buried together.

Then there’s a question that flows from something both Moulton and Suthers’ office (as quoted in Tuesday’s The Denver Post) agree on: The Massachusetts case involving DOMA won’t invalidate Colorado’s marriage law, but, theoretically, if Massachusetts wins its case, Colorado’s ban on gay marriage could possibly be a little bit harder to defend down the road. Is it right to support a lawsuit that strips gay couples, married in another state, of the right to be buried together or to receive Medicaid benefits, simply because having those benefits might, theoretically, make Colorado’s ban on gay marriages slightly harder to defend? Does this put any stress on Suthers’ conscience?

Another question: If Suthers’ underlying motivation is related to states rights, why pick this case? As Moulton pointed out: “In this case, what Massachusetts is saying is, our state’s rights are being impinged upon because what the federal government is saying is, here’s some money for a federal program, but if you have to use it, you have to discriminate against some of your own lawfully married citizens under your own law. They are arguing that (DOMA) is infringing on their rights as a state. It does seem odd to have some other state [Colorado] say, no no, that’s not okay.”

And this question, posed by Moulton, gets to the heart of the matter: “At the end of the day, if what you’re really doing is just attacking Massachusetts because they’ve decided to stand up for their gay and lesbian married citizens, because you have some fear that one day in some hypothetical case that doesn’t exist, your marriage law might be in jeopardy, doesn’t this seem pretty mean-spirited and maybe not the best use of state resources right now in this time of fiscal stress?”

Partial Transcript of Appearance by Attorney General John Suthers on the Caplis and Silverman Show, 3 p.m. Hour, Feb. 1

Attorney General John Suthers: You know, you can’t get into these things based on what’s going to be the politically greatest route. I don’t know if you’re watching it today, but I’m getting all kinds of grief about filing an amicus brief in Massachusetts’ constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. And it’s very apparent to me that people are attributing political motives to me, just being anti-gay marriage, when in fact I think this is another case that really bears upon federalism. The federal government in DOMA is not attempting to define marriages under state law. In fact they say, we’re simply defining marriage for purposes of federal law and federal benefits and for our purposes, marriage is between a man and a woman. States are free to do what they want. Massachusetts says, you can’t define it between a man and a woman. That discriminates against our gay couples in Massachusetts. And we in Colorado, the voters in 2006, chose to define in our constitution marriage as between a man and a woman, and we support the federal government and the states as being able to define it for their own purposes, and we don’t want Massachusetts to be able to impose on the federal government or the state of Colorado with the definition of marriage.

Craig: Mr. A. G., we can’t go on that tangent, though it’s interesting, and we’d like to talk to you about it on another day that’s not so newsy.


Full story: Reporters should ask Suthers: If your anti-gay legal brief isn’t anti-gay, what is it?

Colorado Pols Mailbag #2 (Part 1)

28
  by: Colorado Pols Tue February 1, 2011 at 11:16 PM MDT

We got a ton of questions for our Colorado Pols Mailbag, otherwise known as “Ask Alva.” We received so many questions, in fact, that we’re going to have to answer them in separate “parts.”

Click below for Part 1 of Colorado Pols Mailbag #2.

KHMECK asks a few questions, including an older one that was lost in the mailbox:

1. Hi Colorado Pols,

In theory, I’ve heard all spending on TV ads should be public info-or so I’ve heard–so that any ordered ads, the dates, time-segments, networks, and total expense, are all considered public info as soon as an ad is placed.

Where should I go, or who should I call, to find out how much airtime a campaign bought in a given market, time-period, etc?

Sometimes the local media reports on these ad buys, and sometimes the buys are announced in press releases. But if you want to find out yourself, you should call the particular TV stations that interest you. If it’s a cable TV buy, then things are a bit more complicated. You can probably get the buy for Comcast cable, but DirecTV is done nationally and is thus likely more difficult.

2. Any idea if Primavera will run again in ’12?

The last we heard, Primavera was definitely considering another run in 2012, but it’s too early to say for sure. Republican Don Beezley narrowly defeated Primavera in November, but this district is one of those in northern Colorado which has seen the highest population growth in Colorado, and it could look a lot different after redistricting.

3. Is Max Tyler term-limited in ’12 or ’14-which?

Actually, neither is correct. Former Rep. Gwyn Green retired in April 2009, and Tyler was selected by an HD-23 vacancy committee soon afterwards to replace her. Because Green was less than a year into her term when she retired, Tyler is limited to three full terms. He can run in 2012 and 2014, but not again in 2016.

Galapago Larry asks two very different questions:

1. Why do some cheeses melt, and others don’t?

According to Polster Diogenesdemar, the reason some cheeses melt and others don’t has to do with “fat and moisture content versus milk-solids content…as affected by aging (aka ‘drying’).” That all sounds scientific and fact-based, but the answer to your question also depends on your definition of “cheese.” You can melt the crap out of Kraft singles, but if those little square bastards are really considered “cheese,” then we might as well start calling Twinkies “bread.”

2. Who are the most powerful non-office holding, behind-the-scenes, Democratic decision makers? We got a peek inside the Republican tent in the maneuvering among Maes/Tancredo/Wadhams; who would have been mentioned if something similar were to have surfaced in the Dem. party? (Not that it would, of course, because Dems are so much better organized, on message and managed but ….)

The behind-the-scenes power players in both political parties (see, blogs can use alliteration just like those fancy real media folks!) generally fall into the same category-the big donors and the people who advise those big donors. Because of Colorado’s Amendment 27 and our relatively small contribution limits, elections are often won or lost by the “527″ political committees that can spend unlimited cash, so you need those folks behind you if you are going to have a chance at winning. On the Democratic side, the names would vary a bit depending on whether it was a federal or state race, but either way, Al Yates and Ted Trimpa would be at the top of the list.



Middle of the Road asks:

How many people contribute under the umbrella of Colorado Pols name? We all know better than to ask who you actually are but how many contributors post for you under your blog name?

The answer to that question depends on fat and moisture content versus milk-solids content…as affected by aging (aka ‘drying’).

MADCO asks a multitudinous amount of questions, which we’ll take one-by-one:

1. Why do H-Man and GopWarrior believe it’s ok to post lies?

It’s not a lie if you really believe it. You’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you.

2. What would it take to eliminate sales taxes in Colorado?

Colorado doesn’t have enough money for basic services now, so any effort to eliminate sales taxes would have to be part of a larger package to overhaul Colorado’s tax system in general. Dumping the sales tax could be a chip used to negotiate for something like eliminating the Gallagher Amendment, but it couldn’t happen on its own.  

3. Why do local school district residents pay taxes to fund schools statewide?

The aforementioned Gallagher Amendment takes some of the blame for this, for which Great Education Colorado has a good summary:

K-12 public schools in Colorado are primarily funded through a combination of local property taxes and state revenues. Historically, local property taxes have made up the majority of funding. However, since property taxes have decreased and will continue to do so based on the impact of the constitutional Gallagher Amendment, the state has been required to fill in the amount that property taxes used to cover.

The other reason that tax revenue from one district is spread out elsewhere is because population shifts have made it impossible for some rural areas to continue to adequately fund their local schools.

4. How is it the fault of teacher’s unions that the graduation rate is less than we would prefer?

We could answer this in one word: Ignorance.

This happens for the same reason it was the unions’ “fault” that the automotive industry collapsed, even though they had nothing to do with misreading the market and deciding to build SUVs that nobody wanted. You need a foil to make any argument look better, and labor unions make a great “bad guy.”

For a variety of reasons, labor unions are not particularly well-liked in many areas of the country, including Colorado. A lot of that has to do with the fact that labor unions are not well understood. Colorado is not a state that has a high density of union members, so most Coloradans have no exposure to it; most people don’t know anybody who is in a union, so the only thing they hear about unions are the bad stories that pop up from time to time in the media. This makes it easy for critics to blame the teacher’s unions for poor graduation rates, because they don’t know what the union does and they’re already pre-disposed to disliking them. Critics also like to blame the teacher’s union because, let’s face it: they don’t have a real answer of their own. The union might be a part of the problem, but they’re certainly not the problem; if you dissolved the union tomorrow, and did nothing else, would graduation rates rise in two years automatically? Of course not.  

5. Is the Oglalla aquifer really going to go dry this century?

It will if you don’t stop taking three bubble baths a day.

6. Why doesn’t Rep. Tipton outline how to cut the federal budget in half?

Our Scott Tipton impression: Why must everyone keep reminding of my pledge to cut the federal government in half? Don’t you people understand that I was just telling the Tea Party what I thought they wanted to hear? I was a STATE Senator at the time, people! How was I supposed to know that more than 60% of the budget is tied up in military spending, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

And let me be clear on this: I pledge to protect Social Security, Medicare and military spending!

7. Why is whatshisnametad still in the penalty box?

Uh…what?

8. Why is anyone a “conservative”? Do they all mean the same thing when they claim to be?

They are all triguardian.

9. Shouldn’t people who believe in the rapture not drive their car at all since they can’t know when they will go?

They can just say that they made a quick run to the store to make sure they had a new toothbrush before they were raptured. God will understand.  

10. Will Dan Caplis ever run for elected office? (And the corollary- why does he suck so much?)

No, Dan Caplis will never run for elected office. He will, however, continue to float his name on his radio show every two years and tell both of his listeners that he is “considering” running for Senate or Governor. It’s not even his fault, really. Dan’s mouth has been on autopilot for 10 years while his brain works on a devious plan to take over the Frank Azar empire. In fact, we’d almost guarantee that Dan will talk about running for Senate next year, even though there is no election for Senate or Governor in Colorado in 2012.  

11. Has the domain Hickinlooper4President been reserved yet?

Nope. The domain name that spells his name correctly is still available, too.

PERA Hopeful asks a couple of questions, including another union query:

1. Whatever happened to Troy Eid?

After stepping down as U.S. Attorney (before he could be officially replaced by President Obama), Eid went back to work at his old lawfirm of Greenberg Traurig. He’s been biding his time until late 2011, at which point he’ll continue his lifelong quest to be mentioned as a potential candidate for every political office in Colorado. With no statewide office up for grabs in 2012, we imagine it will be a tough time in the Eid household because of the limited number of offices to pretend he might target. Eid will definitely float his name for CD-7 at some point, but after that, it’s anyone’s guess!

2. When is Shawn Mitchell term limited, and will he run for AG then?

Mitchell has had one of the more bizarre periods of elected office in recent memory. When he began his legislative career, he was considered a rising star for the GOP…and then he started losing track of his marbles. It was well-known that Mitchell’s ultimate dream was to run for Attorney General, and he was apoplectic when Republican John Suthers was nominated to replace Senator-elect Ken Salazar in 2004 and was allowed to run for two full terms as AG. Since then, Mitchell has gone on a series of weird rants, including open attacks on his fellow Republicans, while also turning into a bodybuilder, or something. He’s term-limited in 2012, but his political career is basically done. Both Democrats and Republicans think Mitchell is a clown, and he couldn’t even get out of the primary if he ran for AG in 2014.  

3. How long do hot flashes last? I’ve had them for years and am ready for them to stop.

Hot flashes are an uncomfortable problem, but there’s good news ahead! [answer redacted by Colorado Pols' attorneys for grievous misuse of Wikipedia in attempt to offer medical advice].

4. I think we can all agree that Ritter’s executive order that allowed state employees to unionize but not bargain on any financial issues was a meaningless sop thrown to the unions.  I mean, yippee: they got to bargain over break times and vacation schedules.  Since that is the case, why are people all wound up about it?

See our response to MADCO in Answer #4 above.


Full story: Colorado Pols Mailbag #2 (Part 1)

Suthers has delivered his moonlighting opinion to Gessler

49
  by: Jason Salzman Tue February 1, 2011 at 8:29 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



POLS UPDATE: It’s all over, folks, as the Denver Business Journal’s Ed Sealover reports:

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler has abandoned his plans to do side work for his former law firm, he announced Tuesday afternoon.

In fact, Gessler will not do any side work with any law firm in order to focus on his duties in his new elected position, he said in a letter sent to constituents and the media…

The disclosure was followed by a week and a half of public discussion that included condemnations of his decision and questioning by some lawmakers.

—–

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced on KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show Monday that his office has given Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler an opinion regarding his plan to moonlight for his former law firm, but Suthers did not offer further details.

Gessler hasn’t raced to the news media with Suthers’ decision, which means it likely was not a green light, though we obviously don’t know.

The radio show has been breaking newsbits on the Gessler moonlighting story, since it first broke in the Denver Business Journal.

On Thursday, for example, Gessler told Caplis and Siverman that his former law partners were “very uncomfortable” with his idea of making the names of his moonlighting clients public.

Yesterday, with Suthers on the program during the 3 p.m. hour to discuss recent court decisions about the federal health-care bill, Suthers answered the following question from Silverman about Gessler:

Craig: Scott Gessler has asked you for an opinion about whether his moonlighting is ok. You probably can’t tell us your decision, but can you give us some timing on when you might make the call?

John Suthers: We’ve already indicated to Scott what we think the issues are in regard to that decision. And I’m not free to comment what we’ve advised Mr. Gessler.




Full story: Suthers has delivered his moonlighting opinion to Gessler

LGBT Groups to Suthers: Are You Lying, or Just Stupid?

11
  by: Colorado Pols Tue February 1, 2011 at 12:10 AM MDT

In today’s Denver newspaper, reporter Jessica Fender takes a too-brief look at the decision by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers late last week to join a lawsuit in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Last July, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled against DOMA, saying that it interfered with the rights of states to determine their marriage laws themselves–an argument that rests in part on the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. You might recall that Suthers’ Democratic opponent Stan Garnett harshly criticized Suthers’ then-silence on this ruling, commenting that Suthers “appears to support states’ rights on a selectively partisan basis, and only on issues that are in line with his own political ideology.”

Well, as was reported today, Suthers has actually joined the federal side in this lawsuit seeking to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, an obligative responsibility of the Obama administration–signing Colorado on in partnership with the Attorneys General of Indiana, Utah, South Carolina, and Michigan. Their argument boils down to this: “different Tenth Amendment tests apply.” At the very least, this move validates criticism that Suthers is selective and partisan with his view of “states rights.” Here’s an interesting story from the Washington Independent from last summer about the strange bedfellows (no pun intended) created by this ruling, and constitutional interpretations that might surprise you and the “Tea Party.”

Back to the matter at hand–why is Suthers really signing Colorado on to this case?

According to our knowledgeable source, Suthers’ claim to the Denver newspaper that he joined this lawsuit to defend “a Colorado constitutional provision” is false. As it’s explained to us, there are several sections of DOMA in question, and the lawsuit in Massachusetts pertains to federal benefits for same-sex couples that are already recognized by the state in question–not the section that pertains to the authority of states to accept or reject marriages from other states.

If that’s right, by supporting this suit, Colorado’s Attorney General is indeed weighing in, specifically, in favor of denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples in the states: a much less defensible position from a “state’s rights” point of view, and arguably more reflective of Suthers’ personal opposition to gay marriage than anything else. This impression is reinforced by so few attorneys general signing on. What LGBT interests are saying is the reasoning given to Ms. Fender by Suthers’ spokesman is either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and raises pointed questions about Suthers’ real intentions here.

We’re guessing Stan Garnett has a few, too.


Full story: LGBT Groups to Suthers: Are You Lying, or Just Stupid?

“Where’s that warrant now, you fucking nigger?”

41
  by: Whiskey Lima Juliet Sat January 29, 2011 at 8:35 AM MDT

Did I get your attention?  Good.  Westword front page story last week, “Black and Blue”….

Two friends, one Black, one White. Marijuana in the car.  Black kid beaten beyond recognition, White kid given $160 ticket and sent home.

Eventually, Landau blacked out. When he came to, he was being dragged out of the bloody gutter. One of the first things he remembers hearing is one of the cops telling him,
“Where’s that warrant now, you fucking nigger?”

http://www.westword.com/2011-01-20/news/alex-landau-beaten-denver-police-lawsuit/

OK, once again tell me how this was just ANOTHER incident that I have taken out of context, the cop feared for his life, blah, blah, blah.  Thug Cops.  And this time it is racial!

The mistake the cops made was the “nigger” has two white parents, what a shocker. What LA cops learned in the 1990s is the Black kids they were beating weren’t just gang members, they were the wealthy kids of rap stars and Hollywood elite.  In other words, “Niggers With Lawyers”.

Fast forward to Denver, Colorado circa 2000.  Thug cop beatings galore.  And now, the racial beating.

The Governor should be all over this.  Where is the outcry from the Black community?  Where is Wellington Webb, Councilmen Michael Hancock, the Black Chamber and the Urban League? I have seen this escalate first hand when I was a witness to the LA Riots in 1992.  I guess Denver is fortunate not to have enough radical BLACK PEOPLE TO TAKE ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE FACE OF OUR YOUTH BEING BEATEN.

I am once again sickened by law enforcement.  Why?  Because my car, my brothers car, and my husband’s car smells like cannabis.  We transport it all the time.  I have forgotten my wallet before.  So, in Denver, is my family fair game for thug cop beatings over cannabis?

Every time I get pulled over, I call a lawyer on my cell phone and inform the cop that my lawyer is listening or the call is being recorded.  I have my husband and my brother do the same.  I am fearful that the cops would use us as an example.  

This, people of Denver, is why pot should be legal.  

Yes, I care about patients, but I am sick to death of hearing about Black and Brown boys being arrested,  beaten and given felonies over pot.  A plant that NO ONE HAS EVER DIED FROM, unless you are beaten to death by law enforcement.

Gov. Hickenlooper, AG Suthers and whoever is the next Mayor, I want to know what you are going to do about this? My family’s safety is at risk by your Denver cops!


Full story: “Where’s that warrant now, you fucking nigger?”

Walker Stapleton’s Moonlighting, Too!

14
  by: Colorado Pols Wed January 26, 2011 at 12:45 AM MDT

Sandra Fish writes for Politics Daily:

Republican State Treasurer Walker Stapleton, elected this fall, is the second Colorado elected official to continue consulting with a former employer…

“As state treasurer, they’re supposed to be investing for the state of Colorado. What if there are state funds that are invested in this company?” asked Luis Toro, director of Colorado Ethics Watch. “There are different sets of laws for different officials and we’re still wading through all of that.”

Stapleton’s office issued a response saying his outside consulting with his previous firm — SonomaWest — isn’t a problem.

“There is no conflict of interest with respect to his duties as Colorado’s Treasurer,” wrote Deputy Treasurer Brett Johnson in an e-mail. “SonomaWest does not operate within the realm of public finance. While Treasurer Stapleton has discussed this matter with the AG’s office, he has not asked for a formal ruling on this matter because the relationship with SonomaWest does not represent any conflict of interest in any shape or form.”

We’ll start by agreeing that Treasurer Walker Stapleton’s circumstances are different than the much clearer-cut conflict of interest posed by Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s moonlighting for his election-specialty law firm. Stapleton’s California firm Sonoma West doesn’t appear to have any presence in Colorado, or any dealings in public finance at all as Brett Johnson says. Stapleton was explicit with reporter Tim Hoover that Sonoma West “does not currently have any business in the state of Colorado,” which actually throws Gessler under the bus a little.

But we can’t help but wonder, if there is really no conflict of interest, why Stapleton doesn’t just ask Suthers and put this to bed once and for all. Johnson’s arrogant response aside — “[Stapleton] has not asked for a formal ruling on this matter because the relationship with SonomaWest does not represent any conflict of interest in any shape or form” — we’re pretty sure that Stapleton isn’t an attorney.

But Gessler’s much splashier moonlighting controversy doesn’t make Stapleton’s arrangement look good, for sure, and where Gessler says his would only be a fractional supplement to his income, Stapleton will reportedly earn much more than his pay as Treasurer from Sonoma West. With that in mind, all the questions posed to Gessler about distraction from his elected responsibility, or even split loyalty in whatever circumstances might force a choice, would certainly apply to Stapleton as well–even if it might not provoke the same full-throated outrage Gessler has.

Heck, maybe it’s charming that nothing can come between a Bush family scion and his bling.


Full story: Walker Stapleton’s Moonlighting, Too!

What Has Gessler Requested of Suthers?

23
  by: Colorado Pols Mon January 24, 2011 at 9:58 PM MDT

Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler has been under fire for the last few days for complaining that his $68,500 annual salary (which pays about 33% more than the average $46,000 salary in Colorado, according to the Colorado Department of Labor) just isn’t enough and that he needs to work a second job with his old law firm — conflict of interest be damned!

Gessler has no doubt asked Republican Attorney General John Suthers for a private opinion on the matter (he can cite attorney-client privilege here, because the AG is technically Gessler’s “attorney”), but the public should know what question(s) have been asked. Gessler is essentially asking Suthers for a ruling that will affect his work schedule as a full-time elected official in Colorado, so the public absolutely has a right to know what is being discussed.

We don’t see how Suthers could possibly approve a plan that lets Gessler work for his former law firm, which deals primarily in election law. Gessler may say that he could be excused from any potentially conflicting cases, but that misses the bigger point about the Secretary of State’s office: The elected SOS should not have a second job with any employer who does business in Colorado.

Remember, the SOS’ job isn’t just dealing with elections — the SOS handles all manner of business regulations and registrations for companies of all different sizes in Colorado. With that in mind, we don’t see how Gessler, or any person serving as the Secretary of State, could ever be permitted to work for another company that does business in Colorado. The SOS has a direct conflict of interest with all of them.

So, what has Gessler asked Suthers? And how could Suthers ever, in any permutation of the ask, agree to allow Gessler to moonlight somewhere else?


Full story: What Has Gessler Requested of Suthers?

Doesn’t Excuse Gessler, But Shouldn’t We Pay Them More?

57
  by: Colorado Pols Sun January 23, 2011 at 11:39 PM MDT

A report from KRDO-TV on the scandal over Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s decision to work part time for his politically radioactive law firm, somehow free of conflicts of interest:

To be clear, we have no interest in defending Secretary Gessler’s decision to “moonlight” for his old firm, which is in turn connected to some of the most toxic characters in Colorado politics (see: Shires, Scott)–and we don’t see a way for him to carry out his duties as Secretary of State with such a large, unaccountable soft spot raising questions about everything he does. Moreover, Gessler’s complaints that he can’t survive on a $68,500 a year salary look absolutely horrible to the average Colorado citizen, who will be happy to notify Gessler that he/she makes a lot less.

This certainly is a public relations disaster for Gessler at least; and on the heels of awful press over cutting school breakfast money for poor kids, it tells the story once again of a hypocritical, out-of-touch GOP in Colorado–who has been losing more elections than they win in recent years.

We feel it’s necessary to enter all of the above into the record before we address the point made by Colorado College’s astute Prof. Bob Loevy in the KRDO story at top:

“I’m embarrassed for the people of Colorado,” said Bob Loevy, Colorado College Political Professor, “because the root cause of this story is we pay our public officials woeful salaries compared to what they could make in the private sector.”

Loevy said pay for Colorado state leaders is on the low-end compared to other states.

“When you pay all your state officials, other than your governor, under $70,000 a year, that’s just not realistic in today’s market for personnel,” he said…Loevy agreed, however, that a job at Hackstaff Law Group would be a conflict of interest with Gessler’s state post.

This is, it must be said, a valid point: professionals like lawyers, meaning like Gessler, would normally have a private-sector income substantially higher than $70,000 per year. And as Loevy says, the relatively low pay for top positions in Colorado government relative to what a person with the same skills could get in the private sector does create a disincentive for some very qualified people to seek office. We submit to you that this is a problem affecting not just statewide elected posts, but also state legislators; who are asked to take on de facto full time workloads, during and outside the session, for less than a McDonald’s manager earns.

Does this excuse Gessler’s actions? Of course not–he knew what the job he was running for would pay, and he’s not so foolish as to have no comprehension why his election-specialty law firm is a much bigger potential conflict of interest than, say, Ken Salazar’s Dairy Queen or John Suthers’ class at DU. Gessler has demonstrated a level of brashness with this move that looks like cluelessness, but is really much more straightforward arrogance. It validates some of the worst criticisms made by his opponents, and raises very serious questions about his judgment.

But it seems to us that if spectacles like this one can be avoided, along with votes to take breakfast away from poor kids that you have to admit make pay raises for politicians a, um, harder sell, perhaps someday this is a conversation we ought to have. We, like Prof. Loevy, are a little embarrassed to have to mention it in these circumstances, even though it’s true. It’s like finding defective brakes in a crash obviously the fault of a careless driver–you still have to note it.


Full story: Doesn’t Excuse Gessler, But Shouldn’t We Pay Them More?

SOS not full time, $68,500 not enough – Gessler to keep lawyering

80
  by: softie Sat January 22, 2011 at 2:59 AM MDT

(Did we predict Gessler would be a four-year field day for Democrats? Three years, eleven months, and one week to go! – promoted by Colorado Pols)



POLS UPDATE #2: From the Colorado Independent:

Making sure that any work [Gessler] does for Hackstaff doesn’t conflict with the work he has sworn to do for the people of Colorado, however, may amount to another full-time job.

The secretary of state oversees and administers laws, codes, regulations that cover a vast array of vital and contested areas of activity, including lobbying, elections, campaign finance, voter registration, ballot initiative title setting and petition verification, some gambling as well as business, nonprofit and charitable practice and licensing. The list is long…

Attorney General John Suthers, who is tasked to work with Gessler to help him avoid Hackstaff-related conflicts of interest, said attorney-client privileges prevent him from speaking on the topic.

This legally proscribed silence is a big problem and points to the bigger problem going forward, according to Luis Toro, director of government watchdog group Colorado Ethics Watch and a man who has argued cases against Gessler in the past. The public is being forced to simply accept that the secretary of state will be acting in good faith without any way to really ask questions or get answers to confirm that’s the case, he said. [Pols emphasis]

—–

POLS UPDATE: In a press release from Strong Colorado (after the jump), basically every liberal group in the state takes a swing at Scott Gessler’s decision to moonlight at his old law firm while serving as Secretary of State. Says Steve Fenberg of New Era Colorado, “As a public servant, Gessler has to have the public trust. And he’s telling us – ‘trust me, but I can’t tell you what I’m doing.’ Given his background in partisan politics that’s a difficult thing to ask.”

That’s the nice way to say it–original post follows.

—–

Scott Gessler, our brand-spanking new Secretary of State, now charged with overseeing elections and campaigns, plans to continue working as an attorney for Hackstaff Law Group, which represents clients needing help with election and campaigns.  

Perhaps it would have been nice to tell his employers – the voters – before they hired him that this was his plan. He could have told them that $68,500 wasn’t enough. He could have said that he didn’t believe being the Secretary of State would consume all of his time and energy. He even could have told us, voters of Colorado, that the apparent huge conflict of interest was actually no problem at all.

Whatever the case, it is truly mindboggling how audacious he is to think that this won’t be a problem, in both perception and reality.

Maybe he just didn’t know how much the position paid before he applied for it.  

DBJ broke first, but here is the report from HuffingtonPost Denver

Gessler told the Business Journal that he needs extra money to supplement the $68,500 he will make annually as Secretary of State. A former partner with Hackstaff and Gessler LLC, now the Hackstaff Law Group, Gessler said he’s taking more than a 50% pay cut in his new job.




January 21, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ellen Dumm, 303 810-4370, ellen@strongcolorado.org

Gessler “Moonlighting” Raises Trust Issues with Public

Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s announcement that he will keep a part-time private attorney job to supplement his state salary raises some red flags because he cannot reveal much of the information about his private job.

Gessler, who represented independent, political attack groups as a private attorney, says he will work 20 hours a month with his former law firm, Hackstaff Law Group. Hackstaff continues to represent numerous political organizations that do business with the Secretary of State’s office. The law firm will not disclose Gessler’s part-time salary and cannot reveal the legal clients.

During last year’s campaign, the Colorado Statesman noted that Gessler’s name was attached to “virtually every third-party right-wing attack group.”

“The Secretary of State’s office oversees campaign finance, elections, voters’ rights and some business and nonprofit activity.  As a public servant, Gessler has to have the public trust. And he’s telling us – ‘trust me, but I can’t tell you what I’m doing.’ Given his background in partisan politics that’s a difficult thing to ask,” said Steve Fenberg of New Era Colorado, a civic engagement group for young voters.

“He’s running Colorado’s elections and has to be above reproach. Trust is a big piece of his relationship with the public. This is not a good start for him,” said Ben Hanna of the Colorado Progressive Coalition.

Gessler says he is taking a pay cut of more than 50% to take the Secretary of State’s job, although he was aware of the salary when he ran for the office.

“There are a lot of people who are struggling right now who would love to have a $68,500 salary. That may not seem like much to Mr. Gessler, but that tells me he doesn’t have a good sense of what the world is like for a lot of people. I’d love to have one job right now, much less two,” said Diane Stallard, an unemployed human resources professional who has been looking for a job for two years.

###


Full story: SOS not full time, ,500 not enough – Gessler to keep lawyering