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 20, 2007 08:53 PM UTC
39 Comments
What exactly is he talking about? I don’t know about this history. Does anyone have any support for this sweeping claim?
…would be campaign finance reform that was passed as a statutory ballot measure in the late 90’s (?), subsequently gutted by the general assembly. That’s why Amendment 27 was put on the ballot in 2002–to keep the legislature from thwarting what voters wanted.
The General Assembly then enacted contribution limits which were thought to pass constitutional muster, only to tick off Peter Maysmith and Common Cause who wheeled out A-27 with its lower dollar limits.
……..for voters to initiate and pass all manner of bullcrap.
Googled to find out more, and found this:
http://csindy.com/cs…
It seems to indicate that General Assembly may have used a lower court ruling that was at odds with the Supremes.
The Supreme Court opinion was about a different law in a different case.
Did anyone appeal the district court opinion in Colorado? If not, the injunction ordered by the district court was effective and Colorado legislature would have had no power to ignore it.
Ethics reform is one of those things, like campaign finance reform, that is VERY unpopular among those whom it affects (members of the legislature). That’s why these things NEED to be in the constitution; they simply will be gutted and won’t exist otherwise.
Look at how politicians like Joan FitzGerald and Peter Groff are doing everything they can to undermine Amendment 41, even to the point of scaring public employees. It’s really shameful, but it shows why these kinds of things need to be in the state constitution.
Or is it merely as assumption of bad faith on the part of the legislators?
As for Fitz-Gerald and Groff, you can’t accuse them of tinkering with A.41, can you? They are about as hands off on this thing as possible.
Amendment 41 is very clear and no legislative fix will ever fix it. It needs to be repealed, pure and simple. Fitz-G and Groff are doing the right thing.
Especially concering the relationship between the prohibitions section and the penalty section. These two sections don’t match up too well if we look only to the plain language of the Amendment. This ambiguity provides an opening for the legislative fix.
It doesn’t even define “gift” in the definitions section. That is the thing it is trying to limit and it doesn’t define it? That isn’t very clear to me.
more interested in having an issue to use against Polis in next year’s primary than she is in ensuring children of state employees can receive scholarships to continue their education.
Rather f-ed up priorities if you ask me…
I think the voters will see through Joan’s attempts to play politics and it will backfire against her.
if I thought he needed it. He doesn’t.
Joan is a lawmaker and understands how laws affect real people.
Why hasn’t Joan yet endorsed the House compromise bill and accompanying resolution for the supreme court’s guidance? I’m not saying it’s a great thing, but I am interested in her reasons for not joining this compromise.
She has to much to lose with all that special interest backing she’s got.
I am sick and tired of politicians who are looking out for themselves AND not taking care of the state. Her very attitude on 41 tells me that she is exactly what I thought; a self-serving politician.
As it is, I am guessing that 41 will end up helping jared,not hurting him iff the supremes back it. If they throw it out, it will hurt him. I am further guessing that he will probably come up with more ideas that are good for the state. I may end up putting in some time for polis just because it is time to bring in folks who are NOT corrupt, NOT part of the system, AND WILL shake things up.
Have you spent time with him and listened to his ideas? I’m curious to get your reaction if you have.
But I have looked in on the things that he has done (blue mountain, his education group, 41, etc) and he is slowly helping to improve things. From where I sit, I can see that he has made a difference even though he did not need to.
Now, there is ~2 years before the election. It makes sense that he will do at least one more project to get noticed with or just because he can. As it is, I doubt that he ever had intentions of going into politics. Of course, I think that we are speculating and he is probably not going to run. 🙂
OTH, most politicians strike me that they are doing things to move up the food chain and get to lucrative lobby money. I have no doubt that most, if not all, started out as TB and with good intentions, but over time, I think that lure of money has changed them. But who knows. Perhaps I am just cynical towards politicians these days and not giving them their due. 🙂
When does the CD-2 line change? Polis can’t really be this far ahead of the other Dems anymore – unless it is just the money factor that is going to get him nominated. If so they might as well queen JFG now and save the election costs.
But that isn’t surprising this far out from the election. The only thing that surprises me is that the usually astute Colorado Pols thinks anyone in CD-2 has better odds of winning at this point than Musgrave in CD-4 or Lamborn in CD-5. Fitz-Gerald may be the favorite, but she certainly doesn’t have incumbent like strength in CD-2.
In addition, I know for certain that at least one person on the line has committed to another that they won’t run. I’m not sure whether the “official” support is there yet, but a few endorsements from the right people could shake things up.
Story on the ad… from another poster
http://coloradopols….
have you heard the radio ad slamming FitzGerald for stopping the compromise legislation in the Senate. I don’t know if she has or not but this ad is hard a hitting 60 second piece blaming her directly. I couldn’t catch what group was paying for the ad but I’d like to know who is really paying for it not who is on the tag line.
Attack ads already? I’ll reserve my judgment until I see where the money is coming from…
I believe it was some 29 group. Next time I hear it, I will be calling her.
I am one of the few on this site who supports 41. I am opposed to how she is acting. There are mistakes with 41, but it seems that they can be corrected. More importantly, some are working to do so while others are working (actively and passively) to stop the fixes.
I am sure that at the next election, the politicians who are fighting it will be remembered for it.
is that no other Dem Senator is involved in the 41 conversation except Groff & FitzGerald, Dem Senate leadership. Could it be they are taking the heat and structuring the compromise to keep other Senate Dems from getting sandbagged by the R’s on this issue. Yes, the R’s are trying to make political hay by either accusing the D’s of running over the constitution to spite the people’s will or refusing to fix a “simple” problem to spite the people’s will. I do think the weight of opinion has shifted to fixing the problem and the R’s are going to loose the ability to make this an 08 campaign issue.
I do wish the conversation (re: Polis) had not been so bombastic but if a compromise gets put together and the D’s get out of this without giving the R’s a campaign issue, I will believe Groff and FitzGerald did a great job of protecting their caucus and doing the right thing.
I guess that I had not thought of that. You make it sound like a team sport rather than an individual game. Looking at it from that angle, I guess that I can see that there is a bit of a trap that they have to get through.
Coloradans for Ethics (an Article 29 Committee???)
I just heard it in the background and was paying attention to traffic. Who are they?
There’s one or two references to the Merrifield/McFayden group – Colorado Citizens for Ethics in Government – as “Coloradans for Ethics” on the Web, but there’s nothing formally recognized by the state by that name AFAICT.
Thanks for looking this up but groups don’t have to register before they produce ads. So it may be a while before we can find who the money folk are, if that is ever revealed.
Is the new name of Amendment 41, now that it’s in the CO Constitution.