U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(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) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
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%
June 21, 2007 04:08 PM UTC
9 Comments
Phillips’ lawsuit is not meritless. It forces an issue about a law that needs to be re-written. No matter what the outcome, it should produce legal clarification that can be used for future elections. That alone is worth the effort in my estimation.
The need to clarify the residency issue aside (that will happen now anyway), it’s pretty clear why this lawsuit was filed. Some people just don’t take “you lost by a mile” for an answer.
Denver District 3 (as my handle implies, I don’t live there) seems to have decided who they want representing them twice, by a huge margin each time, even after Phillips made sure they all knew about this “issue.” Moving on.
…if they didn’t actually have to fulfill the residency requirements?
The field of candidates in District 3 was particularly weak. Just look at the pitiful fundraising in that race, which scraped the bottom of the barrel compared to other open seats. Heavy-hitters in the political scene essentially gave a vote of “no confidence” on all of the candidates, including Lopez.
The weak field was due largely to election rules which invalidated the potential candidacy of many more well-known and/or well-connected politicos across the state. To make a fair election, perhaps we should have just opened up the District 3 race to anyone who wanted to run, regardless of residency requirements.
If it doesn’t apply to Lopez, it shouldn’t apply to anyone else.
Fair is fair…
Don’t forget, this disctrict is not only one of the poorest, but probably the one with the most non-voters (i.e., recent illegal immigrants) of them all. How many people were going to pitch in anything at all?
but if the suit is looked at strictly from what Phillips is trying to accomplish (winning a council seat by lawsuit) it is without merit. But having this kind of attention will probably move residency clarification up the agenda.
There is a quite reasonable legal argument based on the facts in this case that Lopez was not an eligible candidate. There are documents signed by Lopez or with him as a source that say he became a resident after the required date.
This said, it isn’t obvious that winning does much for anyone. The obvious remedy would be to declare Council District 3 vacant, and to hold a new vote. It probably takes city council action, and then a couple of months of lead time to hold an election like that (probably by mail), and a ruling is unlikely to come down until July, so it is unlikely that a new election date would be in September.
Bottom line: Lopez would be eligible to run again in a re-vote. And, it is highly likely that he would be seen as an incumbent in that race, discouraging the free for all open seat race we saw the first time around.
In a runoff where Lopez residency is no longer an issue, with only two or three candidates including him, it is likely that he would win. And, the special vacancy election would cost the city money.
If it is determined that he was ineligible to run when he did, then it would mean he lied on his candidacy papers which are a sworn statement. This would likely bar him from being eligible to run again for several years for any office.
I only vaguely know both candidates, so I have no horse in this fight. I am far more interested in the process and its integrity.
You are right that a vancany would be declared if it was determeined Lopez was not eligible for the seat he ran for. That part is already in law. I would expect the judge to rule very quickly on this matter so it could be settled before the swearing in in mid-July.
Once a ruling comes down, the City Council would declare a vacancy for district 3 at its next meeting (the Monday evening following the decision) and vacancy election would have to take place within 90 days. It would likely be handled by mail and would only involve the one district. The winner of that election would be sworn in as soon the vote is official. There is still a chance that Lopez would not meet the 1 year requirement by then.
The judge should throw out the lawsuit, but order the council to re-write the law so it’s clearer in the future. Anything else would in effect be legislating from the bench