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%
October 11, 2011 09:40 PM UTC
33 Comments
Rollie should make sure to send a thank you card to Gessler.
Gessler is still the state’s chief elections official. The rules he makes and directives he lays down need to be respected. Pols and other liberals should be very careful about not inciting conflict between the counties and the state.
Gessler is free to make a rule, under the statutes that govern rulemaking.
Gessler is not free to issue one-off edicts and orders via email.
You think Coloradopols has that much influence? And not, you know, the court?
Best make your way up to Boulder County and get yourself ready for the Resistance movement!
Oh wait, you’re on the side of the bad guys, how did I forget that?
tends to quickly erode your authority. I am glad a couple of the counties have issued an FU to Gessler and this nonsense.
but he’s really, really bad at it. 2012 election could very well be a nightmare not because of his plots but because he’s probably just as bad at being a competent SOS, partisan politics aside. It helps, in the sneaky plotting business, to be reasonably bright.
and I am hoping the result ends up being the exact opposite of the one Gessler wanted. He is taking it in the balls, and deservedly so.
Mary Estil Buchanan, Natalie Meyer, Vickie Buckley and Donetta Davidson, Republicans all would never have sat for this. Remember when Republicans ran this state? I wonder why? Frankly, Natalie, who I know the best, would have been up to the legislature next year and forced some kind of a bill.
The reality, once again, Republicans are trying to legislate using a court. Republicans aren’t strict constructionists at all, they simply want the right construction and that is all.
Today’s “Republicans” have lost their way and that is why they have lost this state, because they have lost a lot of real Republicans like me who they now call RINO’s. Well, here’s to you “Republicans” burn in Hades. I’m still voting for Democrats until your party goes the way of the Whigs or I die.
And Obama is still the President.
Gessler’s job is to uphold election law. He doesn’t get to create it and then demand obedience.
“Administrative activism” in the manner you doesn’t seem a very constitutional way to govern, but IOKIFYAR.
Gessler should be respected because he’s our elected SOS. But the healthcare law should be opposed by any means possible, even though it was passed by Congress and signed by the President.
Can’t you try for a tiny bit of intellectual consistency?
intellectual consistency without some “intellectual” at the outset.
Gessler is the chief of elections. He makes rules. He does not propose legislation.
A Republican judge ruled that Gessler didn’t follow it.
Ve must follow Herr Gessler no matter vot he doeses mit der ballots and ze funny busy-ness.
Gessler’s blatant partisan over-reaching is resulting in more inactive voters receiving ballots in more counties this time around and could lead to legislation that could mandate ballots be mailed out to all eligible voters for whom mail ballots have not been returned as undeliverable in the past. Everyone will be watching him like a hawk going into the 2012 elections.
Not only that but every time a new county clerk decides to follow suit that extends the life span of the story I’m sure that, besides local media, Rachel Maddow will keep us all up-dated and it will be discussed on other cable shows as well.
From the moment he started whining about the money, Gessler has been a one man PR disaster for himself and for his party.
I live in a big county. Very glad to see this.
Link: https://secure3.convio.net/pn/…
Because he will be.
2014 too.
Military voters are more worthy than civilian voters?
But shut your mouth. I’ve seen maps. The disenfranchised voters would likely vote against 103, which you support (and I oppose).
I still support extending the vote to everyone.
The Clerk in Mesa cited cost as a concern for mailing ballots to the FTV voters. It is a valid concern in these cash-strapped times. Since it is up to the Clerk’s discretion whether to mail ballots to FTV, they do need to take that into consideration.
The overseas voters cannot go to a voter service center to vote, the ones in town can (of they physically can’t they can easily request a mail balot via the web or by mail). So if there is a budgetary issues, I can see making that distinction.
Personally, if I were Clerk and holding an all-mail election, I would go to whatever extent I was allowed to get ballots to all of the eligible voters.
But I still dislike differentiating between categories of voters.
But that is an issue that the legislature needs to fix.
but I wonder how much more expensive going back to precinct polling place elections would be in lieu of “all” mail in elections which still involve drop offs and may involve voting centers.
Elections cost what they cost and nobody ever proposed closing precinct polling places in precincts with low turnout on the grounds that the number of voters weren’t worth the expense back when that was the way all elections were conducted.
As far as that goes, only about half of eligible voters vote much of time across the country, but we still have to meet the expense of allowing all of them easy access. Seems like a red herring.
of these ballots. Four percent is a lot in an election.
mail to inactive FTV voters. People need to be reminded that VOTERS didn’t decide to make this an all-mail-in-ballot election — county clerks decided that. VOTERS should not have to pay a penalty for the decision by having a harder time voting.
But Clerks have been under the mistaken impression, bolstered by the SoS, that they could not send ballots to inactive voters.
Finding out only now that they can is well after they budgeted and been authorized for the funds to spend in this election. I think we will see a lot more Clerks budgeting for those ballots to the inactives in future elections.
Of course the legislature could change the definition of inactive so that it does not include the people who simply failed to vote, but are otherwise perfectly fine to vote in the current precincts. That would alleviate the problem altogether.
Especially with the trend toward all mail-ins.