U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 30, 2018 01:04 PM UTC
18 Comments
The oil and gas industry is spending $40 million to protect billions of dollars of investment and future earnings in Colorado. These ballot measures originate on the far sides of a discussion that should be taking place nearer the middle. Is there an issue of well spacing that needs to take place? Absolutely. But if ever there was a need for a reasonable discussion between the two sides, it is now. But it won't happen in the current political environment.
And we absolutely need campaign reform that that will take special interests out of the discussion and return our elections to the people. Get rid of gerrymandering and institute term limits. Maybe then we won't see ballot issues like these anymore.
It has nothing to do with our current political environment. It's been the same story for a long, long time. Most Republicans and some Dems are content to let the extractors do whatever they will, other folks be damned. The industry has used this carte blanche to arrogantly push further and further into neighborhoods, schools, public lands, etc. There are few real regulations or enforcers thereof, no real protections against companies that go bust, and no concern for the rights or safety of folks forced to live around these things.
Is this the legislation I'd prefer? Nah, I'd like something with more nuance. But, that won't happen, so I'll take this instead. If this passes, the industry and its supporters have nobody to blame but their own, greedy selves.
Well said, Pseudo..
The oil and gas industry has owned this state government since the early 20th century. They have bullied everyone and have stolen billions of dollars from Colorado landowners and taxpayers.
They have put themselves in this predicament, let them live with the results.
Yes on 112!!!!
NO on 74!!!
I agree.
I'd add that this is a legislative measure and can be amended by the legislature. But at least this time, those who want more reasonable O&G regs will be negotiating from a position of strength.
And, fortunately, this won't be in the Constitution and subject to the signature requirements and super-majority required to change it.
Well said, Pseudo. This report is long in the tooth but is instructive as to how the industry has managed to befit itself with every conceivable advantage over the years. Those of us involved in the 2008 Amendment 58 campaign still remember the force of their sledgehammer.
Indeed, Michael. Ask Kathleen Curry or Tresi Houpt what tangling with the Oily Boyz is like. They are vicious in their attacks on those who stand in their way.
Here in western Colorado, we were considered by the industry as a "national sacrifice zone". There is a 2007 documentary, by Joe Brown, by that name. We who live here were so much "collateral damage". There is a book by a friend of mine, Tara Meixell, by that name.
The oil and gas industry has only one concern. $$$$$$!$$!!$$$!!! They will hurt anyone they have to in order to maintain their profit margins. People don't figure in to that equation…except as a liability….and an unwanted expense.
The O&G boys best be careful what they wish for. 74 could bite them in the butt when aggrieved property owners in subdivisions sue over losing their quality of life.
The terror of 74 is that it can be used and abused by everyone. O&G sues because of well placement limits; landowners sue because there are no placement limits. Lather, rinse, and repeat for almost every zoning or safety measure. Government is stuck in the middle paying everyone.
Which is exactly why Oregon repealed a similar measure.
On the other hand, if the industry can be destroyed by a Stalinist power grab like 112, why shouldn't they fight back with 74?
i voted no on both, believing the federal 5th amendment is protection enough against Wesley Mouch's wet dream, 112.
if you don't believe that, take a look at who is on the federal courts these days.
hell no on 112. Reluctantly no on 74.
Yes on X. It's better than sex.
I'm confused by anyone who has even a vague like for a Constitutional Amendment like 74 that would pretty much destroy our state and local government and any special districts.
Tell my why it's less problematic to you than the statutory 112?
Don't mean to butt in, but V. taught me how, so…
I'm guessing my friend sees the issue only through the eyes of a mineral owner and a member of. an O&G family. I have never critcized a worker for doing his job, including the guys out in the patch. I used to be one of them and still have family who work out there. I worry about them.
I don't really think you will get a cogent argument on this one. The Oily Boys go to great lengths to indoctrinate and propagandize their people. I believe it was Aldous Huxley who wrote, "22, 400 repetitions make a truth.". The political right in general and the O&G industry specifically utilize this principle to their full advantage.
For instance…the American Petroleum Institute hired an attractive blonde actress to sell the notion that natural gas is a clean fuel. It is not. It is no cleaner to produce and use than is coal. But, today 70% of Americans believe that nat gas is " clean".
She did a good job. That was not the only lie she sold America. Night and day…at practically every commercial break on every TV channel in the nation (and, presumably, the world) every..single..day.
It is the reason V. allows his self-interest to override his generally sweet heart. Forgive him.😉
As for butting in, Duke, this is a public blog and everyone is welcome. Except for Cornholio the commie bot, of course. There are limits!
112 is a deliberate attempt by malignant extremists to destroy a legitimate industry and the thousands of jobs and families it supports.
74 is an overreaction by the intended victims of 112 seeking to defend themselves.
as I said, I voted no on both. But it is clear that 112 is more malign in intent and probably more destructive economically than 74.
Oil and gas jobs are less than 2% of Colorado's economy, and have been declining for the last decade, predating 112, with an uptick from ~ 27,000 to 31,000 in 2017.
That's about 31,000 jobs, in "mining and logging" which includes the oil and gas extraction industry, in 2018, out of 3,096,000 jobs in Colorado. Data is from those subversive malicious extremists at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
If you're arguing that those 31,000 jobs are really 230,000 jobs, as the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission claims, you would have to logically admit that the tourism and recreation industries, which rely on clean , beautiful, unpolluted natural environment of Colorado, and which generate 349,000 jobs, have 10x the impact on the economy as those 31,000 jobs.
Finances, research, tourism, renewable energy industries, all contribute much more to Colorado's economy than does the oil and gas industry.
Your over the top characterization of any opposing viewpoints as "freeze in the dark" or evil people intent on disrupting your family member's livelihoods miss the point – your real beef is with economic reality, and that's not going to bend to fit your narrative.
Don't bother insulting me or trying to drag this into some gigantic grievance session. You can, of course, but I won't see it. I'm way too busy with work and GOTV to bother with your rantings at anyone who dares to disagree with your pronouncements.
Well, I said it would cost thousands of jobs. Your way of disputing that was tobellow that there are only 31,000 jobs in the industry. Obviously, you ignore well-established multiplier effects. But this will shock you — even 31,000 jobs lost fully verifies my claim that thousands will be lost.
the malign spirit of 112's backers is obvious from the contempt you aways show toward the hard working members of this industry.
Anyway, enjoy the pay cut you will get if you succe ed in passing 112 and costing schools billions in tax revenues.