The Denver Post’s John Frank reports on the death in the GOP-controlled Colorado Senate of Senate Bill 15-257, a bill to restore Colorado’s presidential primary election and hold it in the pivotal month of March of an election year. Republican intraparty miscommunication reportedly played a large role in the death of this bipartisan bill:
Sen. Jesse Ulibarri, one of the Democratic sponsors, said he had “no clue” what happened. “This is one of those where I walked away scratching my head,” the Westminster lawmaker said.
Under the bill, Colorado would have held a presidential primary in March that ran parallel with the state’s complicated caucus system. In doing so, it would have allowed unaffiliated voters to play a larger role in selecting the party’s nominees for president and attracted more national political attention. Colorado is considered one of the seven true swing states for the 2016 election.
In addition to both major parties, the bill drew support from prominent Democrats and Republicans, including Senate President Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs. But when it came before the Senate Appropriations Committee, four Republicans voted to kill the bill with three Democrats supporting it…
According to Frank, Senate Republicans claim they were under the impression that new Colorado GOP chairman Steve House did not support restoring a presidential primary election, but that’s not correct: House had put out a statement endorsing the legislation before it was introduced. But as we’ve seen on a number of occasions this session, there may be some excuse-making for the party’s right flank at work here:
[A] more powerful undercurrent came in opposition from conservatives in the party, who believed a primary election would lead to more mainstream Republican candidates with the involvement of unaffiliated voters. [Pols emphasis]
Got that? The real problem here seems to be that the far right wing of the Colorado GOP would lose power over the nominating process with a primary election open to unaffiliated voters, instead of a closed party member-only caucus like we have today. A March primary in which unaffiliated voters could declare affiliation and vote would allow many more people to take part–and for the out-of-the-mainstream ideologues who nominated Rick Santorum in the last Colorado GOP presidential caucuses in 2012, that’s a bad thing.
And apparently, more important than our state being a factor in the 2016 primaries at all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Dems Save The Day, Government To Stay Open
BY: Gilpin Guy
IN: Weld County Gerrymandering Case Pushes The Boundaries Of Home Rule
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: bullshit!
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Friday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
I've said before I don't have a problem with parties wanting a closed primary – that's why it's a political party in the first place, to promote the party's ideals in an organized fashion, which is something you can't do as effectively if you allow anyone and everyone to override your primary endorsement.
The fact is, though, that the Radical Reactionary Right has enough problems with mainstream registered Republicans voting in a primary; the additional threat posed by unaffiliated voters only adds to their troubles with the broader base. (The same goes for Democrats, too. In a caucus, I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie Sanders wins the caucus nod, but the broader party base would probably select Clinton in a primary.)
Bingo. I agree 100% that the crazies in the GOP fear their own less crazy colleagues more than anyone else.