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%
March 11, 2019 11:32 AM UTC
11 Comments
Actually, the official name of that initiative was Stalinist 112. And voters crushed it.
In District 1, where my husband Scott Durrah (www.Scott4Denver.com) is running, Scott has signed off on saying he will fight to ban fracking in Denver.
Sadly, when the air quality in Denver is being compared to Bejing, it is sad to see Democrats fighting against our future and our health. But hey money is important, right? Is this what being a Democrat is about?
Scott Durrah will be a great addition to the Denver City Council. (and great to have you back WLJ!);
Some who voted against 112 no doubt were motivated by economic fears, O&G made sure of that. I voted against 112 simply because there was no research supporting 2500'.
I like 181
181 has possibilities but I am confused by the pooling rules and suspect the local government cans will lead to a lot of lawsuits. But I do think it is a good faith effort. I'd much rather see it go to an interim committee and try to work out some ofvthose problems.
The pooling rules seem sane to me, not that I'm an expert. And while I think the local control could get too controlling as-is, it's no more than you'd have in any other industry.
Here's my problem with pooling: what is a majority? Assume on a quarter section, madco, duke, mj and dio each own a quarter-acre lot I own the other 159 acres. I want to develop the gas. The four freeze in the dark guys refuse. Does a majority of landowners rule or a majority of land? Most corporate rules are one share, one vote. This suggests two tiny investors can screw a major investor. How do you read it?
As to local control, remember the Colorado Supreme Court decision giving those reserved powers to the state. Nimby's will have a field day but the federal fifth amendment still applies. Won't the nimbies have to pay for the rights they confiscate?
I voted against the "one size fits all" 2500 foot set back. It allowed no choice, did not take prevailing winds or geographic features into account, and had no option or appeal process.
The Senate bill, mandating emission control and monitoring. and pushing regulation to the bodies with regulatory control for topics for any industry OTHER than gas&oil seems reasonable.
I could do without the mandating of people with specific areas of expertise ON the commission, figuring the background ought to be provided by state employees to a diverse representation of commissioners.
It only changes two of the O&G reps into wildlife and health reps. It maintains regional and party diversity.
My problem with this section of 181 is staying awake as I read it.