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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

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

70%↑

30%

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
March 23, 2009 09:00 PM UTC

What Morgan Carroll And Don Marostica Have in Common

  • 22 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

That would be an uncomfortable level of frankness with their peers, as the Denver Post reports:

A state senator vented on her blog after a committee killed her prescription drug bill.

That’s not unusual.

But lawmakers tend to go after the other party, not their own colleagues, and Sen. Morgan Carroll of Aurora ripped fellow Democrats, including the Senate president and the committee chairwoman.

“I knew it would be a difficult bill,” she wrote, “but what did surprise me was that the Democratic leadership was so complicit in spiking the very health care reform we all campaigned on.”

Democrats say the hubbub over the post, which appeared last month, has died down. But they admit they were unhappy at the time with Morgan…

Senate President Peter Groff, D-Denver, said Carroll “has a right to say what she wants to say – but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences down here for what you say.”

Carroll stands by her blog entry and her bill.

“We didn’t get elected to make friends,” she said. “I like and respect the people I work with, but when I think we can do better, I will say so.”

The measure in question is Senate Bill 166, which sought to ban drug companies from giving gifts to doctors or reselling patient prescription information for marketing purposes…

Post reporter Lynn Bartels goes on to describe Sen. Carroll’s version of events, which includes curious committee assignments by Senate leadership and singling out Sen. Jennifer Veiga for “refus[ing] to even entertain a vote on an amendment – something I have never seen in 5 years.” Here’s Sen. Carroll’s February 19th blog post in full.

We’re sorry to say it, but you can’t praise Rep. Don Marostica for bucking his party’s leadership and condemn Sen. Carroll for bucking hers. The fact is that the handling of Senate Bill 166 was a little curious–we’ve heard this from a few sources, though not anything we’d call unheard of–and this isn’t the first time that generally progressive Sen. Jennifer Veiga has helped kill a bill opposed by business interests with less than a fully adequate explanation.

What? It is what it is, folks. Sen. Carroll may not have won many friends among her new Senate peers by going off publicly, but the facts of the story don’t exactly leave her looking bad. Kind of like Don Marostica.

Tweet
Share

Comments

22 thoughts on “What Morgan Carroll And Don Marostica Have in Common”

  1. Kudos to Morgan Carroll for having to guts to stand up to her own party on the drug bill, and on the horrible DNA collection bill as well.

    I like Sen. Carroll because I always know where she stands. She always does what she thinks is the right thing for her constituents, and she doesn’t cater to the special interests. That’s more than I can say for Jennifer “I never saw a check cashing or Pharmaceutical lobbyist I didn’t like” Veiga.

      1. http://coloradoindependent.com…

        A state Senate panel late Wednesday evening approved a bill to require law enforcement officials to collect DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony in Colorado, over strong objections from one lawmaker who said “Katie’s Law” – named after a New Mexico college student whose brutal rape and murder was solved using DNA evidence – does “permanent damage” to constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. …

        State Sen. Morgan Carroll, an Aurora Democrat, made an impassioned plea to reject the bill without added safeguards – based on a version of Katie’s Law adopted in Maryland recently – and wound up casting the lone vote against it after several restrictive amendments failed to gain enough support.

        “The only way this works is if we assume they’re guilty and we haven’t proven it yet,” Carroll said. Moments later, acknowledging the bill was likely to pass out of committee, Carroll delivered a scathing assessment of the proposed law. “I think we have really done damage – probably permanent damage – to everything we hold dear in the Constitution,” she said.

        Carroll wrote about her opposition in a Square State diary a couple weeks ago:

        http://www.squarestate.net/sho…

        2. I mean, we are talking about getting DNA from someone who has already been legally seized (arrested).  How does the DNA sampling transform the legal seizure of the whole person into an unconstitutional search/seizure of a fraction of that person?  I’m just askin’!

          1. The laws have only been around a couple years. There are also provisions in all the laws to have your DNA profile removed from the database if charges aren’t filed or you aren’t convicted. One of the amendments Carroll backed would have put the burden on the state to remove profiles of people who were arrested but not convicted — the way the Maryland law is written — but as Morse’s bill is written now, the burden is on the person arrested.

            As to your point about seizure — the argument is over whether the DNA sample is merely identifying, like a fingerprint, or has the potential for a window into your identity. Note that law enforcement needs a court order to take a blood sample from someone who’s been arrested. This is usually relatively easy to obtain, but it’s not automatic the way DNA collection would be and can be contested before a judge.

            It’s also true that anyone seized (arrested) by law enforcement has to be charged or released within a certain period, while officials keep the DNA sample.

            1. It seems like a fingerprint is much more of a window into a person’s identity than a blood sample, so I don’t know why the former is easier to get.  But, anyway, I appreciate the info!

              1. that taking a blood sample is considered more invasive, you know with the needles and all, but that fingerprint ink can be a bitch too. But you raise a good point — if law enforcement only took PALM prints, think of the window the gub’ment could have into your soul (“I see a long, life life interrupted by several brief incarcerations …”).

                1. If invasiveness is the touchstone (rather than breaking windows of identity), then taking a DNA sample would seem to be more like taking a fingerprint than taking blood.  I mean, I’m not a felon (NOT convicted!), but a swab of the cheek would seem much more palatable than a NEEDLE (don’t make me faint)…….even when compared to a laborious fingerprinting escapade.

                  1. A citizen is arrested for a apparently violating the private carry provisions.  Now, with that arrest, the police would be authorized to collect DNA and store it in their database.

                    I think Sen. Carroll is right on this one. The 4th Amendment is just as useful as the other twenty-six, like the 1st & 2nd.

                    3. the suspect is arrested on (remember, a good number of felony arrests are eventually charged as misdemeanors, but it’s the arresting charge that counts for Morse’s bill), the answer is yes.  

              2. You’ve stumbled upon a good point here. With various forms of biometrics, whether fingerprints or DNA or anything else, becoming more and more commonly used, the government’s handling of what is increasingly sensitive information should be a reason for concern.  Once somebody gets my fingerprint, I can’t change it and I can’t take it back.  I should insist on the strongest possible safeguards on that kind of information.

                Ironically, there are quite a number of efforts to solve these problems with technical answers… and other governments around the world are interested; but it’s taken for granted by people working on the problem that the U.S. is a poor target, because our companies and our government don’t value privacy as much.  Pretty sad.

    2. for the original attack on Morgan, read here

      http://coloradopols.com/showDi…

      and I know firsthand Morgan will say what she thinks is right.

      her example gives me and others the courage to speak out against not only republicans, but to democrats too, if they are in the wrong.

      here is an interview on Morgan’s first piece of legislation that went against the Health insurance industry, the FAIR Act. (which had the nerve to make Health insurance companies give a reason when they raise our rates)

  2. I hope that Morgan is given the credit she deserves.  She is the quintessential champion for the little guy, and has the very political courage that we idealistically hope for in an elected official.  If you stand up for what you believe in, and can articulately justify your positions (and she can) then you should have a bright future in the political world.  This is not a time for nuanced capitulation to accepted modes of going along to get along.  Morgan, thankfully, is willing to challenge the conventions, and I, for one, applaud her.  

  3. Whenever a politician stands up for our Constitution, which Sen. M. Carroll does all the time, or to do what is right for the citizens and Colorado, which is what Rep. D. Marostica and Sen Morgan have done – let them know your approval.  If a legislator or any other politician is taking a lot of heat for an important stance that goes against party line, and that stance is for the good, let them know.  You can be assured they are learning everything there is to know about the other side, but a little friendly – Good going, I’m with you – is very much appreciated.

    Morgan is someone all politicians should learn their ethics and principles from.  I learned much from her and have been applying it in my life now and will be happily using it when I am in office.

  4. It doesn’t mean I agree with either 100% of the time, but both are thoughtful, impassioned, and honest with us and their collegues.

    And I think both will continue to do well as politicians because of those traits.

  5. ….Carroll’s comments seem over the top if based only on this 1 bill.  To me, her complaints seem to reflect a boiling over of a long-simmering feud.  And I don’t think her publicizing her dispute makes her look all that great.  

  6. I even like this bill and am sad to it go.

    Voting against pharmaceutical reform and with the PhRMA lobby

    I hate crap like that.  Just because you’re against something doesn’t mean you’re for the other side.  Is she right?  Probably.  But don’t put out statements like that unless you know for sure.

    Total dig the rest of the bitchfest, it’s, at the very least, interesting.

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

107 readers online now

Newsletter

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