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%
September 27, 2010 06:06 PM UTC
26 Comments
What are the consequences? They have to return three contributions. And what if they don’t? What are the consequences? Piddly fines.
The campaign finance laws have no teeth.
One can only hope Hickenlooper can take a hint. I know, I know, that’s probably about as likely as “hope and change” being a viable way of governing the nation.
Neanderthal Man was a hoax
BJ needs an evaluation re his meds
only rulings favorable to conservative republicans matter. eh bj?
BARF. I for one could care less what political party a judge is. As long as that judge can differentiate between personal beliefs and the law.
The judicial role is to be impartial and to rule according to law.
If they cannot they should be required to wear NASCAR inspired robes.
IF only this were true and the senate were required to do the same. Then we all would know who their “Sponsors” are and could predict how they are going to vote, favor or rule.
Dems always say they are going to create jobs and provide people with wealth, yet they continually bash those who do. Weird.
Heck, there hasn’t even been criticism (which whiny righties always mischaracterize as “bashing”) of anyone on this thread. Although, as always, you’re free to demonstrate that it has.
And enact laws to thwart them at every step.
http://www.denverpost.com/busi…
insofar as “wall street bashing” the Glass/steagall Act kept Americas economic engine running just fine for 75 years. no bashing just a bit of regulation that kept the money flowing around.
Once republicans repealed it the the money flowed to the top and the economy crashed.
those pesky facts of reality get in the way don’t they?
like he promised. I wonder why?
Find me that “promise” that he’d keep unemployment under 8%. I never heard it, but since you must have, find a link or admit that you’re mistaken.
BTW, since Wall Street overreaching and shortsightedness caused the recession, I think it’s fair to call them out on that, don’t you?
Seriously? This is exactly what people have been talking about for the last year. Obama said unemployment wouldn’t go over 8% if we didn’t pass the stimulus. Geez, watch Fox News or something.
Wall Street did not cause the recession. Fannie and Freddie’s reckless housing policy, encouraged by Barney Frank and his ilk, caused it. Bush tried to stop it, but Dems blocked him. Not fair at all.
The people who consciously lied about Shirley Sherrod? Sorry, they lost all credibility when their news shows (never mind their commentaries, which already had a shoddy record) when they did that.
It’s simple, beej. If Obama promised that unemployment wouldn’t go over 8%, you’ll be able to google it in an instant.
Remember, this is just like college – you have to prove your assertions, and no one has to look it up for themselves.
it’s interesting that you regard companies as the things that made America great. I thought it was the people that did that.
Banks made America great, paying 0.05 percent interest and loaning it back at 27 percent.
Lord, Ari, hasn’t Beej taught you anything?
We haven’t reached that level of automation yet. Calm down, corporations are not run by robots.
until those damn liberals regulated it out of existence!
Let me know if you get fucked by an H1B visa that says people like you don’t count for shit as long as someone from Bangalore will do your job for less.
I mean, if it means that some big company can make money, it must be a good thing, right?
Then nobody will have jobs and we’ll all be happy…
why do I even bother responding anymore?
Maybe you should just go away
Like yourself…
I hope you’re happy losing your private sector job.
retained, or even come close to being not retained, since the retention election system was adopted in Colorado in the 1960s, and no appellate judge has ever received any recommendation from the blue ribbon panel charged with making them other than a “do retain” recommendation.
Previous efforts to oust appellate judges via retention elections have been dismal failures in Colorado. Trial judge removals have only been successful in the roughly 1% or less of cases where there is not a “do retain” recommendation and there is something that has captured the public imagination in media reports that is clearly wrong about a judge. Appellate court decisions, which are always collective exercises of judgment by several judges, very rarely fit that description.
The public has a lot less reason to need retention elections at the appellate level because a single bad apple can’t do much harm. Usually, the sensible thing to do when the public disagrees with an appellate judicial decision is to pass a law changing the law that was interpreted (since very little of what comes before appellate courts in Colorado involves state or federal constitutional law) and the Colorado legislature has done just that with some regularity.
Even on issues of state constitutional law, our constitution is pretty easy to change if you don’t like how the Colorado Supreme Court has interpreted the current version (in the eyes of many, far too easy to change). On issues of federal constitutional law, U.S. Supreme Court decisions greatly constrain the freedom of Colorado Supreme Court justices to deviate very far from the national mainstream.
I agree that the moral force of this particular campaign finance violation is small because the law wasn’t entirely clear, as laws can often be. It is good to get the law right for future reference, but it isn’t terribly troubling that it was violated in this case due to a close question of law.
In any case, judicial removal isn’t nearly as important in Colorado as it is in many states because our system of appointing judges on a primarily merit basis, rather than through elections or political appointments. We are far fewer Colorado judges are unqualified or out of the mainstream at the time that they are appointed than in many states, or even in the federal system.
State appointment of local judges in most cases, and an appointment process that is gentle on applicants for judicial office, also limits the room for corruption between local officials and judges who rule on issues that local officials present, and narrows the room for private businesses to influence judicial appointments with money.
Our judicial discipline body and judicial performance evaluation bodies, while they almost never order a judge to leave office, exceedingly rarely mets out any public discipline for unethical conduct by judges, and are vary sparing in making “do not retain” recommendations, do a quite effective job behind the scenes of encouraging judges who are starting to experience dementia or suffering from breakdowns of some kind in their lives, to voluntarily retire from office before the situation gets out of hand. A mandatory retirement age for judges in Colorado, and a defined benefit pension plan for judges that creates an economic incentive to retire at a normal retirement age, also limits the degree to which this is a problem.
The Colorado Bar Association has consistently rallied to oppose politically motivated efforts to remove judges.
Clear The Bench has embarked on what is largely a fool’s errand, in a state where bad judges aren’t a serious problem. One can always hope to have some inspired genius who will go down in history on the bench, but if you want to look for judges that need to be removed from office you’d be better off looking in places like the highest courts of Alabama, Texas, and West Virginia (all elected), and the Justice of the Peace courts of New York State, where there have been far deserving targets of these kinds of campaigns.
Let me add two points.
1-a lot more judges are disciplined or removed that people hear about. Often, rather than face a public recommendation that they not be retained, they simply retire or don’t see re-election.
2-The Colorado Judicial Institute works to protect and enhance our merit selection system. The CJI is a citizen-based non-profit group that also raises money for training of judges and court personnel. We are also partners with the Colorado Bar Assn. in the Our Courts program. (I’m on the CJI board.)
If your interested in going to our Judicial Excellence Awards dinner this November, let me know and I’ll happily sell you a ticket. It’s a great place to network with lawyers, judges and the rest on neutral turf.
I have contact information at “Yes, I’m a lawyer.” at Wash Park Prophet.