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%
May 11, 2012 12:41 AM UTC
32 Comments
Or is this just a bullshit way of saying, “We’re not really adding any new penalties for alcohol users or for prescription drug users (who got the Big Pharma pass), just for marijuana users”?
To Canines: Yes, this is the same pot DUI bill and, it is bullshit.
In addition to the civil unions issue, the special session will also address “holding drivers under the influence of marijuana… to the same standards as those applied to drivers under the influence of alcohol.”
Great idea, except there is no such agreed upon standard for marijuana. Instead, it is clear that a law will be passed out of this special session that sets severe criminal penalties for driving with practically any THC in the blood system without any connection to safe driving!
This begs at least one question: Would even an occasional marijuana user who also happens to be gay/lesbian end up better or worse after this special session? On the one hand, they would have some rights established regarding civil unions. On the other hand, they would be at risk of severe criminal penalties if they happen to be pulled over for a driving infraction.
I cannot understand why a Democratic governor would choose, and it was a choice, to pull this pot DUI bill out of the heap of unpassed legislation and include it in the special session. Perhaps Hickenlooper’s conscience about the mayhem his bars have caused has something to do with it.
(Double posted from Open Line Friday because I think it’s that important. So there.)
Since this is a special session which specifically names the authorization of civil unions as a subject to be considered, can McNulty play any games to prevent it from coming to the floor for a vote?
“The General Assembly determines how long the special session will last.” What does that mean? Does the session end when there is a vote on all pending matters, upon majority vote, or by some other procedure?
This was in Hick’s order calling the session. And nit is the minimum amount of time needed to pass a bill.
To the questions of shenanigans, yes. McNulty can do several things to derail civil unions. He can send it to State Affairs where it will almost certainly die; he could plan games with bring up for a vote or for debate on teh floor like last time (like that worked out so well for him).
Given his actions during regular session, I do not forsee civil unions passing the special either. Not because it doesn;t have the votes, but because McNulty will kill it procedurely.
McNulty can simply end the session after X days. One of the reasons Hickenlooper stuck that “we already have 15 days budgeted for a special session” bit at the end is to minimize any griping about wasting taxpayer money – it’s in the budget already.
this was a Class Act.
He could do a variety of things, most likely stacking a committee with solid no votes. If he wants to play it straight and allow an up or down vote, he loses and looks like more of a jackass than he already does.
He really painted himself in a corner and now appeases his anti-gay base, or proves to everyone once and for all he knows very little about leadership and governance.
Interesting.
Both can replace committee members whenever the hell they want.
It’s good to be king.
McNulty did it a couple times during the session. I don’t think Schafer did.
If so, what are the chances one of the yes-vote Republicans switches parties for the special session and dethrones McNulty? Both Nikkel and Beezley have nothing to lose.
I couldn’t find anything about that in the House, Senate, or General Legislative rules, but Article IV Section 9 of the Constitution says,
That would seem to rule out electing a Speaker.
Didn’t see anything on a quick trip through Title 2 of the statutes either, maybe someone else can find it.
Everything you always wanted to know about special sessions here.
According to the FAQ in the link provided above, during a Special Session of the General Assembly, the Rules of the House and Senate are in effect as with any other session. I would take that to mean that if the majority party within the House were to shift, members of the new majority could present a motion to elect a new Speaker. The very fact of a change in the partisan make-up would create a situation where the Majority/Minority leaders would change. I would argue that a motion to elect a new Speaker would be in order and the new majority could force a vote. If my rationale is correct, it could give Representative Bradford a unique opportunity for pay-back!
First it’s special rights for gays, and now it’s special mobile machines. It just ain’t right.
Who needs benefit corporations anyway? They already get enough benefits and shouldn’t have their own corporations giving them any more!!
🙂
I want to know what is so important about a benefit corporation that it outweighs the election disclosure bill that Dan was talking about over the past two days…
I read that bill and it still doesn’t make sense. It sounds like a corporation that can manage benefits, such as health insurance and 401k, but I really don’t know. The bill was introduced late in the session and had strong bipartisan support – so I’m assuming they’re benign.
SB 155, the bill Dan spoke of, was amended into another open records bill, HB 1208?, so it survived and did not need to be resurrected.
Thanks for the update – it’s hard to follow these last minute patches.
But it seems the ballot access bill regulations did get passed. I have not gone through the final language yet with a fine tooth come, but on at first blush it looks like we may have avoided a lot of unnecessary law suits. Something I am always in favor of.
Benefit corporations establish a corporate entity that’s sole goal is not to maximize profits for shareholders above all else, but to provide a societal benefit as its number one priority.
All corporations do that!
🙂
Sounds a lot like what early incorporation was supposed to be – for the benefit of society, to be disbanded if it failed to do so.
http://www.gjsentinel.com/opin…
Too bad that’s behind a paywall – sounds like a pretty scathing editorial.
is not a place to go looking for good writing. But it isn’t too surprising about the scathing part.
Things are getting weird over here in Mesa County. The republican party/ Tea Party schism is getting pretty ugly in places. The state party leadership has pretty much had their fill of western slopers.
Also, Laura Bradford has a lot of friends around here and I’m sure those at the paper are delighted to take the opportunity to kick McNutly in the shins for her.
What are the procedural options that the House could convene and member could call for leadership elections and a Coalition of the Reasonable could be formed?
And then would any of the more independent Republicans have any stomach for this kind of arrangement?
Because I don’t see Civil Unions being given a fair hearing in this special session.
Hell, let’s make Rep. Nikkel Speaker for the special session. I don’t know the procedural rules for changing leadership. There must be a way to boot leadership if they’re only serving a legislative minority. And considering the limited nature of this special session the timing would be perfect for a mini-coup d’etat in the House.