President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 25, 2010 09:01 AM UTC

Kathleen Curry Kept off of Ballot

  • 34 Comments
  • by: Jack Burden

(Curry ended her own political career–first by joining Republicans on key votes and alienating her peers, then by impulsively announcing her party affiliation change without consulting the relevant laws. Now that the suit she hoped would change the rules in mid-game has lost, and a Democrat is on the ballot to replace her, fail complete – promoted by Colorado Pols)

From Westword:

A U.S. District Court ruling yesterday ensures that Kathleen Curry’s name won’t be on the ballot for her House District 61 reelection bid.

But unlike La Plata County commissioner Joelle Riddle, whose lawsuit she joined, Curry’s not dropping out. Instead, she’s moving forward with one of the most challenging chores in modern politics: a write-in campaign.

Challenging is an understatement. No doubt Democrats are relieved to have Curry off the ballot; Democrats have a slight (about 1,700) voter registration edge against the Republicans in the district, meaning that outreach to the 18,000 unaffiliated voters is key.

With Curry off the ballot, however, her ability to “split the vote” with Democratic candidate Roger Wilson is limited; it’ll be the quality of the campaigns of both Wilson and Republican Luke Korkowski that’ll decide the seat.

Either way, there’s no doubt the Democrats let out a sigh of relief to only have to counter their former colleague on the ballot over the course of a write-in campaign. While her name may indeed mean something in the area, her fundraising is severely limited because she doesn’t get to raise money for both a primary and a general, nor does anyone have any vested interest in keeping Curry in the House. Let’s face it, no matter how many yard-signs you may want to buy to make sure people write you in, you can’t do it with no money in the bank and no money on the way in.

Funny to imagine that this was once the Speaker Pro-Tem.  

Comments

34 thoughts on “Kathleen Curry Kept off of Ballot

    1. Having been around the legislature and various laws I can understand some lack of knowledge.

      HOWEVER – that does not include any law, rule or regulation regarding being a politician or candidate. If you are running for office or are in office you have to know the stuff.  Not only for you but your staff and volunteers too.  The basic candidacy laws are simple, the finance laws are complex.

      In this case Curry should have known what would happen, and if not she should have looked into (or had someone else do it) what the consequences of her action would be.

      1. All the pols I know make sure they (or a staff member) are aware of all the laws and rules which they and their compaigns have to comply, when the deadlines are, etc.

  1. Kathleen is one of the best legislators under the dome.  She consistently listens and acts in a measured manner meant to benefit Coloradans and her district.

    I’m not a shill for her, but I have worked with her on many bills and I would rather have Rep. Curry on my side than most other legislators. It is sad that we may lose an intelligent legislator that helps bridge the R/D divide on such important issues as water and energy.

    If you want a legislator that is intelligent, understands the issues, isn’t afraid to stand up to partisanship, and can negotiate reasonable solutions, Kathleen is it. The West Slope needs as many strong legislators as possible and, I repeat myself, it is a shame to know that Kathleen may not return next year.

    1. And I hope we haven’t seen the last of her.

      As far as being ignorant of the laws, she’s not.  I spoke to her shortly after her decision to unaffiliate.  She knew exactly what she was getting into, and was confident at the time that she was well enough known and well enough respected in her district to win as a write-in.  I haven’t spoken to her since, so I don’t know if she still feels that way.

      It’s going to be tough, but if anyone can do it, she can.

      1. I need to vote in the races for Senate, Governor, Congress, County Commissioner, Coroner,…, ballot issues, local referred measures, and still remember to write in her name.  

        Oh, forgot, most folks cannot even name their State Legislator, much less write her name.  

        With no $, it will be as close to impossible as can be to run a write in campaign.

             

        1. for both the primary and the general doesn’t equate to “no money.” If she’s a viable candidate, she can raise the funds. Whether she raises enough to get the word out about her write-in campaign is another question, but let’s drop this canard that she’ll have “no money.”

      2. If Curry really thought she was well-known enough to win a write-in campaign, then she deserves to be in this position. Voters barely know anything about candidates for U.S. Senate or Congress; polls consistently show that most people can’t identify their current member of CONGRESS. There’s no way a state legislator, in any district, would have enough name ID to win a write-in campaign.

    2. haven’t you learned yet that only naive fools care about a legislator’s talents and qualities, and how well they have or might serve the public interest in office? (Said with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek).

      There is a sickness in the political blogosphere, which conflates understanding the cold realities of the world with becoming their agent and advocate. It’s time to give at least as much attention and praise to the skills and abilities which serve a candidate well if elected, as to the ones that serve a candidate well in his or her efforts to get elected.

      (Yes, I know, that unless they are elected, blah, blah, blah. That does not change the fact that reserving praise and condemnation for those with the best and worst campaigning skills and strategies reinforces rather than refines our dysfunctional selection mechanisms, in other words, is a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution).

      1. that she best represents them to mount a huge volunteer effort to get people to write her in. Agree with Johnpauljones that even such an effort will probably be futile since most voters are barely aware that a state legislature exists, much less who represents them in it.  Going door to door, you have to be happy if the person who answers can name their US Rep. and both Senators.  

        Most tuned-in Dems probably don’t feel that Curry’s been doing us many favors lately but the most important thing for state legislators is to give their small communities of constituents a voice. Her decision to change parties while ignoring a deadline and trust in a long shot write-in quest, if it was a choice and not a slip, was hardly the way to give her or loyal constituents who support her, the best chance.

        1. but it’s for those who deal in information, either professionally or avocationally, to inform that decision. I make no judgment on the content of that information, only that her qualities, and defects, are at least a relevant component, and, IMHO, almost always the most relevant component.

      2. You’ve been on this bend for as long as I’ve seen your posts here on Pols.

        If you can’t win your campaign because you’re too wordy and too intellectual for the average voter to like you, then you probably shouldn’t serve the public as an elected official.

        It sounds like you want to use your obvious intellect to make changes in our society. I’m sorry, but it’s clear from your campaign that the state house is not the way you’re going to do that. You’d be hell of a policymaker, just stop trying to be an elected one.

        Kathleen Curry is smart, talented, and a negotiator to a fault. By all means, I’d love to have more Independents at the state house. But the reality is that she will not be returning, a reality some of her statements and understandings have hinted at. I’m glad she’s been able to stand by her actions, and I certainly will not be remiss if she returns to the state capitol.

        But she won’t. So any discussion about her “talents and qualities” is a moot point until they can prove to the public that they are legitimate enough a candidate to get elected. That’s our system. It’s been around since the birth of this nation. And any commentary in the blogosphere about elctability is just and fair; you cannot be an elected official without the ability to get elected.  

            1. but Burden may have a bit of a point? You might consider whether more of a policy than an elected political role might not be be the best use of your talents, not to mention the possibility of making rather spending money and how good it might feel to stop running into that wall?  We really do care, Steve.  

              1. Never had it crossed my mind to run for office, until almost the moment that I decided to, realizing that, in my district, the Democratic candidacy was a vacuum to be filled rather than a coveted position to be vied for. Despite a lifetime dedicated to trying to understand the nature of the human world, and even when I left teaching for law school with the intention of being engaged in public policy formation in some manner or another, it had never really occurred to me, in large part because I’m not interested in those aspects which aren’t about designing, advocating for, and implementing sound public policies.

                But I saw that running for office would do no harm, while enabling me to throw myself into the larger arena of public policy advocacy.

                Here’s what I wrote recently in response to similar criticisms:

                [M]y ultimate purpose is to positively affect the social institutional landscape to the best of my ability, not to get elected to the state legislature. The latter is one means to an end; the end takes priority over the means. If I invested far more time and energy in any particular portion of my overall (and mutually reinforcing) efforts, it would come out of other portions of my efforts, which have included (aside from, until last month, being engaged full time in studying the law I am determined to positively affect) giving legal rights presentations to detainees in removal proceedings, drafting legal briefs in order to pave the way to getting mental health screenings into public schools and get in-home care for children at risk of abuse and neglect, founding and presiding over a community organization and working with the Jeffco Schools administration and BOE in an effort to implement a robust community volunteer program, and writing and giving speeches on issues concerning public policy. Are you seriously suggesting that taking time away from a long-shot political campaign (in a district whose numbers are worse than any district the Dems have ever turned) to (successfully) invest in those other related attempts to improve the human condition has been a breech of some ethical obligation?

                I think the distribution of investments in these various enterprises is very rational, and beyond reproach, if the goal is to improve the human condition in my community and state, rather than simply perform my designated role to your satisfaction. Furthermore, I’m not displacing any better potential Democratic candidates by running: If anyone else had wanted to run as the Democratic candidate in HD28, I would have gladly stepped aside, and would still be glad to do so. Finally, if the Dems of HD28 ever begin to believe that they can win this district, and decide to make some effort on which I can build, then, as I said above, I would shift the distribution of my efforts and make an all-out effort to win (probably, at this point, aiming more at 2012 than 2010).

                and

                One of the ways in which I would like to marginally affect our political landscape is to cultivate increased value given to a sincere and capable commitment to improving the human condition, and less surrender to the cynical logic of focusing almost exclusively on what it takes to get elected (not that the two are mutually exclusive, but rather that the latter tends to systematically displace the former, creating a political ritual partially scrubbed of dedication to challenging dysfunctional aspects of the status quo), so I dedicate myself to improving the human condition rather than to getting elected, and offer voters the option of voting for me. Since I’m running in a district in which no Democrat has won since 1966, and which, even aside from the defects of its Democratic candidate, does not currently enjoy a set of circumstances conducive to a Democratic victory this year, the cost of doing so is minimal, while the benefit is remaining true to my purpose for being involved rather than allowing the structural demands of being involved to displace my purpose, as so often happens, at such great cumulative cost.

                 

              2. Why run for office in an almost impossible district to win (in 2010)…? Because it is one component of a larger effort, providing me a podium from which to speak on issues of social importance, in ways which I believe are persuasive and compelling. I do not ignore the possibility of winning, especially in 2012, but I do not lose sight of my larger goals in subservience to a blind ritualism.

                The components of my efforts are mutually reinforcing, accelerating toward their own critical mass. My candidacy gives me a platform from which to speak, augmenting my community organizing efforts which raise my profile in the district, which augment my electoral chances, which raises my profile more and further augments my community organizing efforts, all of which facilitate my efforts to engage local and state leaders on issues of public policy. I treat it as a package, no component of which is indispensable, all of which serve a function, any of which could mature into the focus of my efforts.

                As the context changes due to these combined efforts, the focus of my efforts may change as well, either leading to my manning the phones four hours a day, six days a week, for a year or more straight, raising money for the 2012 election, or leading to my abandoning the electoral component altogether. I will continue to make what I consider rational decisions about how to most effectively pursue my real goal of positively affecting the arrangements of our coexistence, of which my choice to run for office is but one component.

                Politics isn’t just about who is most likely to win the next election. It’s also about how we govern ourselves, what kinds of policies we implement, what kinds of analyses we use, how much we adhere to blind ideology and how much we apply some combination of reason, imagination, and goodwill to facing the challenges and seizing the opportunities of a complex and subtle world. Far more than winning the next election in HD28, I am committed to moving my district and our state in a positive direction, aware of the fact that electoral victories are the superficial overlay of a far more fundamental and important struggle, the struggle to move the zeitgeist, and to cultivate the commitment to reason and goodwill upon which the formation of sound public policy depends.

                1. Finally, if the Dems of HD28 ever begin to believe that they can win this district, and decide to make some effort on which I can build, then, as I said above, I would shift the distribution of my efforts and make an all-out effort to win (probably, at this point, aiming more at 2012 than 2010).

                  So you are basing your complete lack of effort on someone else’s efforts? Has it occurred to you that the reason the Democratic Party isn’t giving your race any support is precisely because you are running a vacuous campaign?

                  Why would the Party even begin to support a “candidate” that has made it clear he isn’t really running for office?

                  Why would they give resources, time and dime to someone wasting their time?

                  We have a serious uphill battle this year to keep the State House and I think it’s to be expected that the State Party is going to devote its resources to campaigns and candidates that aren’t making a mockery out of running for office.

                  Please don’t run in 2012. I’d rather see this district put up no candidate at all than watch you make a mockery of the Democratic Party again in 2 years.

                  Forgive me. I don’t mean to sound harsh but it’s July next week and you have made it clear that other than providing your name to fill in space on the ballot and getting your picture taken with fellow politicians, you aren’t interested in running for this office at all. If you aren’t willing to devote your time or your dime, why should anyone else?

                  1. I’m walking my district daily, talking with voters, speaking at engagements, getting more earned media than my incumbent opponent (and, though my fund-raising was weak, outraised him four-to-one this election cycle), got myself interviewed on a local PBS political talk show, have gotten myself featured several times in the local paper and my op-eds published both there and in the Denver Post, formed a non-partisan community organization in order to reach out to moderate unaffiliateds and Republicans in my district (and actually have some moderate Republicans as staunch supporters as a result), spoke at the Jeffco School Board meeting about community volunteerism and have worked with the school district administration to implement a community volunteer program in the schools, and communicate so constantly with the Dems in my district that it’s a bit of a joke among them how hard I try to keep them stoked and enthusiastic about our campaign, with what they themselves recognize is less success than my efforts deserve.

                    All of that on top of doing the other things I listed above that I have been doing to actually positively affect the social institutional landscape of our state.

                    In preparation for this, I studied law, selecting all of my electives with an eye to public policy issues, and interned with the Assistant House Majority leader and with a small policy LLC, in order to be the best informed and prepared candidate possible.

                    And all at considerable personal cost, both in terms of my own actual expenditures, and in turns of lost or delayed opportunities, postponing taking the Bar, though I have a family to support, and discovering that many jobs for which I would otherwise be qualified are closed to me as a result of my candidacy.

                    If that’s what you call a mockery, then so be it.

                  2. you’d understand that my choices of how to distribute my efforts have had nothing to do with empty rituals (“just having a name on the ballot”), and everything to do with trying to improve our state’s social institutional landscape. That’s what I’m focused on, and I truly believe that my approach to my candidacy maximzes rather than minimizes its value in that pursuit.

                    What you impute to me isn’t what I said, and, more importantly, it isn’t how I’ve acted. I’ve invested a great deal of time and effort into my candidacy. The only thing I’ve made clear is that my efforts are focused on what I consider the ultimate goal: Improving the quality of life for all Coloradans.

                2. You obviously have a realistic view of what you are doing here and somebody has to run for us in those pretty much impossible to get districts. It’s humiliating being a Dem in a district where you don’t even get to have a Dem on the ballot.  That used to sometimes be the case for me when I lived in HD37 and now I’m in HD38(D-Rice) and we got it done in 2006 and again in 2008 after a more than 35 year drought.  Thank you for carrying the load for Dems in your district and for all of us this time and best of luck.

        1. It’s never moot to discuss the qualities that make for a good legislator, or governor, or whatever, because that discussion affects how we think and what we focus on. Is it relevant when events happen that affect electoral outcomes? Of course. Is it the only, or even main, thing that political discourse should be about? Of course not. Whether a discussion of such qualities is relevant in the particular case of Kathleen Curry, in the particular issue of whether she’ll be in the state legislature, is just one of many dimensions which affects whether and when it is a relevant dimension. I think it is rarely optimal to discuss a candidate or official without some reference to their qualities relevant to the office they held or are seeking to hold.

          As for my choice to run as the Democratic candidate in HD28, first, I appreciate your kind words, and, second, other than your assumption that running for office can’t serve the ends you identify, I agree with you to a large extent. There are some conclusions you’re jumpting to based on incomplete information, conclusions that my own experience strongly refute, but there’s no point in my addressing them here (this being the source and medium of that incomplete information).

          Again, I have been very up-front about the fact that my candidacy is just one component of a larger effort to make my own continuing marginal contribution to the improvement of our social institutional landscape, and not one which depends exlusively, or even primarily, on the outcome of the election on November 2, 2010. Visit the Jeffco Pols thread on the revised Jeffco Line for a more detailed explanation of my philosophy and strategy. To put it briefly: There is nothing lost (not even the displacement of a better candidate), but something gained. It’s just a rational course of action.

        2. that I didn’t say that discussions of electability are irrelevant, just that they are not the only thing that is relevant, and, in the long run, not the thing that is most relevant. Ultimately, we want to govern ourselves as well as we possibly can, and doing so requires some attention to the qualities required to accomplish that task, as well as the qualities required to get elected.

          Both change (the qualities required to get elected, and the qualities required to most effectively serve the public interest once elected), along with changing circumstances. And the choices we make, our efforts, are emphases, affect how those circumstances, and how those qualities, change, and how fast they change. Reality isn’t perfectly malleable far from it but it isn’t perfectly immalleable either (the premise which motivates progressives). The trick is to find the soft spots, and work with them to gradually soften (or indirectly affect) some of the harder ones.

        3. Jack, I have taught and worked with kids, from toddlers to undergrads, including high school and middle school students, as a teacher, a camp counselor, and a day care worker, and have generally been very popular and effective with them. The fact that I write long analytical posts on a political blog does not mean that I can’t connect with people, or that they would have to have a certain educational level for me to be able to connect with them.

          In my youth, I worked in two sales jobs, one selling radio advertising spots by telephone, and one selling, yep, magazine subscriptions door-to-door, both of which require you to make people like you quickly enough and completely enough to buy things they don’t really need from you. I was very successful (though very unhappy) at both. It required exactly the skill that you’ve suggested, without knowing me, that I lack.

          Currently, my biggest fan in the world has just a first grade education. She doesn’t think of me as being a wordy intellectual; she thinks of me as being a very funny and playful guy, who she turns to whenever she needs to have her spirits lifted. My high school students used to say such things as “you’re like everyone’s favorite uncle” (a direct quote). The truth is, we are multi-faceted, and those who know us in just one way, through one medium, tend to jump to conclusions that aren’t necessarily warranted.

          I post here for the purpose of writing long analytical posts. There are plenty of people here linking to news stories, and offering quick commentaries, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. But that’s not why I’m here. Nor am I here to advance my campaign. I’m here in order to promote a social analytical orientation among a group of people interested in politics. This is not my campaign; this is not my whole life. This is participation in a particular forum, for a particular purpose.

    3. and as noted by Bluecat, above, if she was that ignorant of the laws, or failed to consider the effects of her actions, her district may well be better served by someone else.

  2. It was some of her Republican constiuents who persuaded her to leave the Democratic Party — and they are fueling her campaign for now to keep her illusion alive of winning a write-in election when the sole purpose is to split the Democratic vote. She’s been played all along.

    Some local Dems do support her now, but by the election time, it may be a different story if it appears the seat will otherwise fall into Republican hands.

    Kathleen will wake up Nov. 3 without a job and no friends from either party. The best political move for her to do is drop out of the race in order to salvage any future career. Like, who wants a sucker on their team?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

112 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!