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%
October 18, 2005 08:00 AM UTC
39 Comments
No problem – Go for the Governors’s mansion, Joan! Colorado needs your leadership.
As a republican I think i have an option worked out. Give her 2 years, and move the seats elections to that schedule.
That’s great news if it nudges Joan Fitz-Gerald into the Governorship race. We need a leader like Joan.
Joan could have jumped in weeks ago. Instead she now looks very weak if she gets in now. Ritter will whoop her ass. Joan will take weeks and months conferring with lawyers, talking to his guy and that and generally letting Ritter stretch out his lead. More interesting is who becomes Senate Democratic Leader. Peter Groff who now is number two and well liked but a weak fund raiser. Ken Gordon who is a solid fund raiser. Dan Grossman still licking his wounds from being said no to so many times when he ran for AG or a surprise?
It’s highly unlikely Joan would resign her seat in order to campaign, so she’d continue to be Senate President while she runs. As for the 2007 session, I believe Gordon is termed out. Which leaves it to new blood like Groff and Sandoval.
If it goes to court,Joan will probably be allowed to run. Colorado courts have a history of deciding such cases in favor of letting the voters decide. Remember when Mary Estill Buchanan petitioned onto the GOP Senate primary? Lower courts ruled she failed to qualify, she had enough total signatures but not the requisite number in each of what were then 5 Congressional districts. State Supreme Court put her on the ballot anyway. Hold off on the conspiracy theories, boys, it has nothing to do with liberal activist judges. It’s just the traditional reluctance of courts to enter the political thicket. When in doubt, they lean to ballot access and let the voters sort it out.
Gordon was re-elected in 04 and won’t be termed out until 08, doubt it.
Joan proved this year that she is in fact a leader and a stateswoman. We need her leadership on the first floor – Run, Joan, Run!
I would love to see Joan step up for the Governor’s race, but I’m not going to jump to conclusions here. Joan will obviously be looking at the legal strength of Stengel’s ruling to see what she might face in the courts, and she may decide to file for a declaratory judgement to preempt any future challenge; such a challenge hopefully wouldn’t take too long, as both sides already have legal opinions on the table.
Obviously she won’t be doing that from DC.
Phoenix-
Stengel? Was that a legal crack about his bar exam results? If it was, then it was kinda funny:)
Whoops! Suthers is what my brain thought, even though the hands rebelled. Must have had that whole bar exam thing floating around subconsciously…
Have to say I’m not very fond of Sutrhers’s timing. This story will dominate much of local political press coverage for the next 2 weeks, taking the focus off the 1st Nov election.
Whatever Joan decides, I am pretty sure she has the common sense to not announce it until after the polls close in 14 days.
Perhaps it will be an interesting victory party this year!
Dan, there’s not the foggiest chance in hell that this story will “dominate much of local press coverage for the next 2 weeks, taking focus off the 1st Nov election.”
There’s simply no way to get more than one or two stories out of this.
I like you Dan, but sometimes you really come out of left field. Nobody cares about this story today except for insiders, and nobody will give a crap tomorrow.
Sure thing is right, this story is a one-day wonder. Suther’s timing was set to allow Gigi Dennis a chance to review Doneta’s ruling. He wanted to give her time to reverse it if she chose.
And furthermore, nobody cares about C&D either (Except us political dorks)
I said it would dominate local political news (all 3 stories of it). I still can’t help but feel the timing was designed to draw some attention away from C & D, especially since early voting began this week in those counties who are doing it.
I amn trying to find a statement from the AG’s office on this matter but have found one so far. The closest is the RMN reporting that Suthers will make this announcement today, but no followup that he has.
Does anyone have a link to any such statements? I am particularly interested in Suther’s reasoning for the decision (if he provides any).
Joan announces far and wide that every waking moment will be spent pushing the passage of C & D. No time for anything else but C & D.
Where was she when this decision is announced?
Washington DC. Surely she was there to collect absentee ballots.
Suthers did not announce this today – Lynn Bartels called him on it. This was not a planned announcement as far as we know.
Way to be there with the inside scoop, Alva.
Another coup for Lynn Bartels!
the decision is posted on the Attorney General’s Official site — follow the links to opinions and it is the top one.
FitzGerald was in DC as an invited speaker at a leadership conference (Dem women?). She spoke about C&D at the Gilpin Dems dinner this past Saturday night, so it’s been a pretty short break from C&D so far.
Having read Suthers’ opinion, and having re-read Davidson’s opinion, I’d say it’s a draw to be fought in the courts. Suthers’ opinion makes a good case for Colorado’s plain language interpretation, but Davidson’s is, I think, more based in current election law. Both are upheld by CO Supreme Court precedent (latitude to voters vs. plain language), and I suspect Joan will need to file a lawsuit for declaratory judgement to have the question resolved permanently. Since the rulings also conflict re: Louis Tochtrop, we’re likely to see a legal resolution to this conflict even if Joan heads for higher office.
Here are my preferences for the President of the Senate (ranked in order) if Joan steps down to run for Gov.
1) Jim Isgar- Put him in the spotlight to introduce him to metro area voters and the Dems will have a viable future Gov. candidate on their hands.
2) Dan Grossman- Bright, energetic, young…good idea to pad his resume more and groom him for higher office.
3) Abel Tapia- No reason other than that he is probably the most decent and genuine guy at the capitol.
4) Sue Windells/Bob Bacon (tie)- It would be good to get a senate candidate that has an education-based background. It would also be neat to see either of these two top off their political careers like this.
And, of the five people you listed there is one who has a slight chance. Otherwise, you are playing off of a handbook that no one else reads.
mypreference, you make my brain hurt. Having seen all five in action, four of the five as senate prez make me weep.
But I’ve seen worse, I guess.
Phoenix,
I read both opinions too and I feel that Suthers has a much stronger argument than the Secretary of State does. His arguments and conclusions are right on and I do think that Joan will lose in court.
While I do not agree with term limits, they are the law and the clear intent was to allow more people to serve in elected office. Suthers arguments clearly and succinctly states that Joan has served as long as she is allowed to by the constitution.
Voyageur:
The case you make for Fitz-Gerald doesn’t correlate with the Buchanan case. They are two obviously different issues.
Obviously, Beth. But the point is that the court has traditionally leaned in favor of ballot access, i.e., let the voters sort it out. Since the legislature can be called into special session at any time, and the four-year term Joan came in slightly after the mid-point assumes service on interim committees, I believe the letter of the law actually favors Fitz-Gerald. If it goes to court, I’d say the oods are 70/30 in Fitzgerald’s favor.
I would put odds in favor of any democrat on any issue in the courts, with possibly the exception of the SC.
The media will keep this issue pretty low-key until she wins in court, then it will be huge story of how the process really works and Joan triumphs over political bias, blah, blah, blah…
I hope she does run for Governor. I could use a good chuckle– seeing her wearing a cowboy hat trying to convince rural voters that she is on their side.
You people are completely dillusional. The courts, regardless of how liberal they are, cannot with a straight face allow Fitzgerald to seek another term. Any other interpretation would treat House and Senate terms of office differently. If she was sworn in on or before the first day of the legislative session, she served a minimum 1/2 term. Period. I’ll take any and all bettors.
You heard it here first. Joan announces that she is going to talk to this lawyer and that lawyer and go to court. Not because it effects her mind you but because other public officials need to know. Gotta give Joan credit. Night and day campaigning for C & D. One speech than a week in DC. At least Romanoff is daily talking to a dozen or so Optimist Club members in Rifle.
What a joke. Two candidates who could be front runners for Governors sitting on their hands while Ritter builds a lead that is becoming larger by the day. Will Joan now ask people to wait for four or five months while her court case is heard? Ritter It is
The plain language supports the GOP position (aka I would bet most people think a half a term is two full sessions), but the letter of the law supports Fitz-Gerald. Colorado Election Law has specific definitions of term lengths and calculation of terms; Davidson used those when ruling for Fitz-Gerald.
And I disagree that the “will of the voters” on term limits is a de-facto argument in favor of Joan’s term limitations; she has in fact served fewer days than her predecessor-in-term, and hence “less than half a term”. If this came up nationally and the Congress didn’t convene to swear in the following President until earlier/later due to weekend scheduling, the same conflict would arise, and the calculation would be strictly based on number of days served – a ruling which would support Joan’s ability to run for re-election.
To rule otherwise would not create a disparity between House and Senate term definitions; if the same thing happened one year in to a House session, the same conflict would arise.
I’ll support the ruling of the court here, but I find no horrible crime in allowing Joan to run for re-election based on the facts; the voters can kick her out if they think such a ruling to be against their will. (Obviously, I’m a bit partisan, as she is my State Senator and has been an excellent representative for my County and Party.)
Save your money, Oh Really. For one thing, nobody has ever figured out how to collect bets made by anonymous bloggers! For another, the Colorado Supreme Court has a 5-2 Democratic edge.
For what it’s worth, I’d much rather seem Tom Plant run for that seat than Joan, because while I respect her, he has a mastery of state fiscal issues earned on the Joint Budget Committee. Then again, so does Republican John Witwer if he could be talked into the seat.
Just finished reading the opinion. I have to say Suther makes a well-reasoned argument supporting his opinion. And he points out some vagueness in the law on this matter. I expect that vagueness will be dealt with in the next session of the legislature.
The letter of the law that does exist would seem to support Suthers. It has not been the formula used in the past, but admitedly it has not been until the current cases where the formula used would affect the outcome.
Bottom line, this Opinion is merely that. It is up to the Secretary of State to make the determination. It would be extremely unlikely for the SoS to make any determination other than that presented by the AG (to my knowledge no SoS has ever ruled against an AG’s opinion).
If this does become the final decision of the SoS, then the ball is in Joan’s court. Here is where it gets dicey. Does she challenge?
Here is how I see her options:
1. She challenges and stands a good chance of being banned from running for her Senate seat, and would not have enough time to make a Gov. run possible.
2. She runs for Gov. instead and let’s Lois Tochtrop (who will be in the same boat in 2010) make the legal challenge.
3. She runs for Gov. and the legislature in its next session passes clarifying language on the definition of “at least one-half of a term”, thus avoiding a court case altogether.
I like option 3 the best (I hate unnecssary cases on already crowded dockets). While Joan would not be affect by the new legislation, Lois could be, assuming she wins re-election in 2006.
Democrats can expect more of this from Suthers and Dennis. They are partisans who will use their officese to help the Republican Party.
The Suthes decision is laughable. He cites states that only pay legislators while they are actually in session. Legislators are paid and have committee work year around here. The logic of well…the Legislature could start a day or two earlier and that is not what is intended…is neither logical, has no basis in the law and is just plain wrong. If Joan challenges this she will win and show Sutherss/Dennis to be what they are. Politicians who care not one twit about what the law says.
Good point, LE. While the Legislature isn’t in session right now, the Legislators are still doing work in the “off-season” with committee meetings and such.
buy ambien online
buildings consecrate assessments negate:free online casino games http://www.knowtax.net/free-online-casino-games.html