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%
June 24, 2013 09:46 PM UTC
10 Comments
It's no victory to "succeed" in abusing our democratic system out of spite.
I thought the Wiscon recall effort against Governor Walker was improper, despite the fact that I don't like Walker and regard his restriction on collective-bargaining a cheap shot and a red-herring: the ability to collectively bargain has little (if anything) to do with the difficulties in reforming pensions. I also regard all of these Colorado recalls against legislators who voted in favor of gun legislation a misuse of the recall process, though I happen to support the gun legislation in question.
Recall propenents, be they liberal or conservative should be careful what they wish for: the shoe is going to be on the other foot some day. Recalls should be reserved for genuine incompetance or credible evidence of criminal activity. If the losing-side can use a recall merely because they don't like the election results, government will become even more dysfunctional than it is now.
So did lots of folks in Wisconsin. Many Dems who hated the guy believed that bad policy isn't grounds for a recall. You elected the guy, you're stuck with him. Malfeasance, criminal behavior have been regarded as the legitimate reason for recall, not buyer's remorse. But don't expect that kind of principled view from the wacko right.
I don't live in Wisconsin (I live in this great state of Colorado), so I don't know for sure but I imagine the recall against the governor failed for the reasons described above.
I guess I just don't want the recall to turn into yet another tool for sore-losers (be they liberal or conservative) to subvert the political process, though we may be heading down that road anyway.
I have a sister who lives there in a small town in the orbit of Madison so lots of Dems. She talked to many people who felt that yes it was mainly about policy and, after all, that is what Wisconsin Dems and unions were pushing, not the ultimately unproven criminal activity. They felt that you get to take another crack at a guy you disagree with next election.
I doubt the right will have any such scruples. They don't even pretend it's about anything but policy. It's going to be pretty hard to and expensive for elected government here to function if good sized minorities can always get enough recall signatures just because they don't like the stands taken by fairly and squarely elected officials. Let's hope that if the recall goes forward in spite of the language violation it fails because winning would set a terrible precedent. Every election would be provisional.
Of course in Wisconsin, there was a John Doe probe going on of both Walker's Milwaukee County Executive office and his Governor's office. In the end they didn't indict him or charge his buddies with election violations even though there was IMHO some good evidence that he misused his office for election purposes – but at least there was a criminal investigation surrounding him at the time. And there was the whole shutting out of citizens from the State House, and the redistricting shenanigans…
But in the end, voters decided it was more about bad policy than about a failure to uphold the law and kept him in office. And if it's about policy I agree – you shouldn't be using a recall based on a policy decision.
There were also abuses in the petition gathering process – even though a signature may be on the voter rolls in the correct district, some voters were lied to, intimidated, or harassed into signing. Volunteers will be following up to verify these signatures.
Best op to stop this in its tracks will be the omission of required language. I don't hold out much hope for that.
No word so far from the Giron camp about filing suit based on that omission? Are they hoping for a quick ruling on the Morse complaint?
Angela Giron is going to also file suit on the anti-Constitutional omissions from the petition language: http://bit.ly/136ExsM
Bravo! Go Angela! She has been a hard working legislator, getting more accomplished than most of her critics have done in a lifetime! Homeless veterans can now get appropriate treatment at Fort Lyons thanks to her (and other legislators, of course) – kids can finish high school and college, people can hang on to their homes, ill people can get acupuncture treatment for mental illness, and so much more. http://angelagiron.com/achieve2.html
If this lawsuit can keep taxpayers from wasting $150K on a recall election which she would win anyway, I say go for it…