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%
November 02, 2008 05:12 PM UTC
84 Comments
Loading ...
I really thought I’d see it winning by 20 points on election night. None of the recent polls have it above 52 yes, and while I still think it will pass (albeit regrettably) I think that it’s going to be much closer than anyone thought.
I still think the only amendments to pass will be 46, 50, and 59.
…instead of spinning his wheels in here where he wasn’t going to change anyone’s mind.
And special thanks to Bob Ewegen for keeping Libby occupied with name-calling when he might have been out doing some real damage.
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
Section 16. Right to work.
(1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE “COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT”.
(2)(a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:
(I) BE A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION; AND
(II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION OR TO ANY CHARITY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY, IN LIEU OF SUCH PAYMENTS.
(2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.
(3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.
(4) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNION EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL APPLY TO ANY RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF ANY EXISTING UNION CONTRACT.
(5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “LABOR UNION” MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR ORGANIZATION, THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF WORK, OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER FORMS OF COMPENSATION; ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES; AND ANY ORGANIZATION PROVIDING OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT.
SECTION 2. Effective date. This amendment shall take effect upon proclamation of the vote by the governor.
The previous 273 times you posted the text didn’t do it but the repitition 274 times changed my mind.
Libertad – get a clue. Repeating something, anything, just annoys people. You’re your own worst enemy here.
…let him keep doing it. It’s not like you or I want those amendments to pass. If he wants to shoot himself in the foot, who are we to stand in his way?
People should be informed and read what they are voting for.
First we have Obama, Udall, Markey. Now it looks like 48 will go down to defeat. I believe she will give us a clean sweep and 58 will pass along with 59.
It could be a wonderful night.
You guys are the morons who wrote it. You’re blaming yourself for it’s defeat.
It is really too bad for 47 and 54. They are great measures for equality, justice and open government.
Try going with reality. Those proposed amemdments do the opposite of what you write.
don’t be dishonest
The Chamber was blackmailed, along with the business community. The “poison pill” amendments put on the ballot would have destroyed many businesses in Colorado, but the unions were willing to play economic terrorism with no regard for what would have actually happened to many of their own union folks had those amendments passed.
What an eye opener. We now know where their priorities lie, if we didn’t before.
PS Pam, can you tell your teacher’s union buddies to get off their asses and try to graduate more than a third of our minority kids in DPS? Oh, yeah, they’re too busy being political to actually do anything that benefits the kids they are supposed to be teaching.
and the first shot to kill business in Colorado came from Ted Harvey, Ryan Frazier and Coors.
It was Ritter and his EO.
Chamber was absolutely blackmailed. They came out against all the amendments because of the inclusion of the poison pill ones.
Now, business had to pay money to the union efforts to defeat 47 in order to get those amendments off the ballot.
That’s exactly blackmail, eh?
This EO excuse is really nothing more than a hollow scapegoat argument since it had absolutely nothing to do with the private sector in Colorado. In fact, Ritter vetoed 1072 in favor of business over labor.
As for Chamber paying money to fight off these deceptive and disastrous measures, it’s exactly what they have done in the past when in collaborating to do what’s right for Colorado. They contribute where they see fit just like any individual would.
And speaking of dirty money, why won’t the proponents of measures disclose who’s funding these measures? They’ve laundered out of state money into Colorado to push a radical agenda and that’s not good for labor or business.
… all work against the people.
YES on 54 and 47
… all work against the people.
YES on 54 and 47
54, 49 and 47 are pushed by giant of state corporations, not Coloradans.
That’s what they get for trying to destroy organized labor. Best defense is a strong offense.
Business can exist without Labor unions.
I think it’s completely possible that the bulk of the unions could have ha reformation and become something that protects workers and makes business better, but that’s really not what’s happening now (although I’ll admit that some unions are fantastic).
was before the weekend, before the eight hour work day, before work place safety regulations, before fair wages, before retirement accounts, etc.
You’re right, business can exist without unions, but who would want to go back to that?
But there’s a balance that’s not served by trying to destroy business out of spite or fear of not being able to force dues out of people.
Is there a reason unions couldn’t offer something so appealing that people would choose to join and pay dues of their own free will?
I would say there is not.
There are lots of reasons to join a union (several listed above), and to claim that anyone is being forced to join a union is simply untrue. Perfect example, David Harsayni. He’s a free-loader benefiting from a union in his profession without actually being a member.
Most of the working conditions that existed in the early 20th century are gone. But there is still a need to deal with other forms of hazardous working conditions (not so much Upton Sinclair’s description of conditions, but workplace violence and sexual harassment are still problems).
And instead of fighting for higher wages, health insurance has replaced that as the major issue.
And, of course, domestic partnership benefits in states other than those with same sex marriage or civil union laws.
Sometimes the working conditions can get to be like something Upton Sinclair would write about. For example the working conditions reported on in the Frontline/NYT report A Dangerous Business. Horrifying without any qualification.
How come their economy is still standing tall, in many cases taller then Colorados?
Those states do not have great economic conditions. In fact the wages and benefits in those states is lower than in Colorado.
lets take benefits. Why don’t you school me with your “facts”.
If, if, if…
LB all you are left with are hypotheticals. The poison pills did their job, strategically they were a brilliant move. I’m sorry that hardball politics is too much for the Colorado GOP.
1) This started with 47, 49, & 54 – from people who want to radically change the business/union relationship in this state – to, in practice, eliminate unions.
2) The unions responded with initiatives that would have decimated businesses in the state. It would have had a catastrophic effect on the economy here.
3) We faced the unions saying if you take us out, we’ll take everyone out. Their response was not pro worker (as it would have eliminated tons of jobs) but it was pro survival of the unions. So yes, it was blackmail.
4) The public schools in this state are horrible as measued by their graduation rate.
5) Primary responsibility for this rests not with the unions, but with the school boards. It takes two to tango and the boards have spent the last several decades rolling over for every interest group in town, including the unions.
6) Many very good jobs exist in businesses that have no unions involved. The entire high-tech sector provides great jobs and there’s nary a union in sight.
7) There are many industries where unions are needed because they are the only possible counter-balance to the company.
8) Some unions are corrupt, some suck, some are so-so, and some do very well. It’s like anything run by people, you get the bell curve.
I do think the business community & unions, after this election is over, should work together to try and come up with an approach that makes sense in the economy we have today. And the school boards absolutely need to do so.
And everyone here who pretends that one side is blameless while the other is evil – is full of it.
47 gets us the freedom to associate.
54 will bring the sole sources to account. I know union dues will be worked through alternate channels and arrive just fine at the intended destinations.
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
Section 16. Right to work.
(1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE “COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT”.
(2)(a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:
(I) BE A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION; AND
(II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION OR TO ANY CHARITY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY, IN LIEU OF SUCH PAYMENTS.
(2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.
(3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.
(4) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNION EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL APPLY TO ANY RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF ANY EXISTING UNION CONTRACT.
(5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “LABOR UNION” MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR ORGANIZATION, THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF WORK, OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER FORMS OF COMPENSATION; ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES; AND ANY ORGANIZATION PROVIDING OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT.
SECTION 2. Effective date. This amendment shall take effect upon proclamation of the vote by the governor.
For some reason you have broken with your handlers and are being “mavricky” by posting the complete wording of 47. This is not in your talking points.
Section 5 specifically is a disaster for police and fire personnel. The words “any” in the definition, transforms any and all people who help an employee in to a “union”. This is not the common definition of a union, this is to artificially define any help an employee recieves in to a “union”.
This section will prevent a lawyer from helping a police office facing a grievance. Grievances are a given for police officers considering the people they arrest are not typically nice people.
So, most others (I am not including you libertad because you obviously want to make police officers face grievance hearings without legal help) have not read this section. Otherwise, it would never have recieved the signatures to get on the ballot.
NO on 47, 49, 54
Pam,
Clearly you miss the sole objective of Amend 47. It gives all Coloradans a choice.
Certainly if I was a peace officer I would join and pay every freaking cent of dues because the liberal trial lawyers and lame city fathers have conned the people foregoing real workplace protections for peace officers.
Today peace officers have the choice to join or not join the union. Most (99.999) because they need legal protection from scumbags.
It is disgusting that our peace officers are not protected by their employer against, usually, BS suits of brutality brought by child molesters and gangbangers who they arrest.
Why are you so against giving all Coloradans the same rights our teachers, firefighters and peace officers enjoy today?
But if any of 47, 49, or 54 lose on Tuesday, I’m sure that bullet point #1 in the post-mortem will be whether their sponsors should have let you speak for them.
You actually think that tens of thousands of Coloradans come here to Pols to get their inside dose of political thought?
Go warm up the crack pipe Ralphie.
ps Ewegen supports 49 and he is a known anti worker corporate offshoring thug.
How’s that wide stance thing working out for you? I still think you should have fought it in court, it was a classic case of entrapment. So, when do you finish the community service? And have you walked Jonathan’s dog yet?
How’s your anti union member amendment #49 polling Bob?
Union members by choice and this crackhead, Ewegen, thinks it is righteous to hike their transaction costs.
you’re seriously insane. No joke, you’re completely fucked in the head.
HE’S SIMPLY an all-out, no holds barred, nutcase. What Maroon!
Position is this. State workers have the Right to Work. Their stupid employer brought them in, therefore the employer pays the full HR cost. No offshoring the cost to the employee as Ewegen supports.
So Ewegen you are a liar, because it was in an exchange with you that I decided to oppose 49…just after your editorial.
I thought you were an editorial writer and political pundit at the Denver Post?
After I shared with this board the MediaNews offshoring strategy, he announced he’d taken a raise and was looking to buy a new Mercedes.
Later on Bob said the Mercedes thing was a joke, he drives an F250.
The pay raise is no joke, nor is the Posts strategy to offshore American jobs.
hates people who work hard and are successful. That’s why he still lives in his mother’s basement. Get a job, loser, and maybe you won’t have to drive your mother’s Yugo any more.
and spreads lies (his opinion) to support Amendment 49
For a legal opinion, check with a lawyer.
The status quo is that everyone is free to join or not join a union, and that no person who is not a union member can be required to pay full union dues.
The status quo is also that any union with majority support can enter into a collective bargaining ageement that binds all employees.
The only difference is when a union with majority support can require that the portion of its fees attributable to the cost of negotiating the collective bargaining agreement can be charged. Currently, this requires 75% support of employees. Under 47, people would be permitted to free ride regardless of the percentage support that a management fee received from employees.
Is how 46 and 47 are considered confusing or misleading.
Sure, the titles “Civil Rights Initiative” and “Right To Work” do not tell the whole story, but it would be awfully hard for a three word title to do so.
The text of the Amendments are pretty damn clear and make the titles legitimate. One could say that Affirmative Action is an affront to civil rights, and the text of the Amendment, without specifically mentioning AA, is pretty clear about ending race/gender preference with select exceptions. And Right To Work, as has been discussed elsewhere, is pretty clear.
It is fine to oppose each of these on merits…but it is like when a Canadian friend of mine was hoping Americans would be smart and vote Obama…I think Obama is going to win, but that doesn’t mean the voters were smart. Similarly, just because Colorado voters might vote the “right” way on an initiative or two is not good proof that they aren’t stupid.
46: Should affirmative action be outlawed?
47: Should unions be eliminated?
That would have made it very clear as to what was going on and people would have been voting on the core question of each initiative.
47 does not eliminate unions; it DOES make Union Bosses accountable to their members.
Look when Ritter unionized state workers he and the Union Bosses provided the workplace protection of right to work to each and every state worker.
Come on, show some intellectual honesty here David, I expect more from you.
as I believe the voters would vote YES overwhelmingly.
The passage of a similar amendment in California did not change the racial composition that much in the UC system. See http://www.ucop.edu/news/facts…
Only Berkeley suffered a large drop in black enrollment and it was easily made up by a huge increase in yellow enrollment.
many fewer universities in Colorado, and schools like CU already have a HUGE diversity problem (so does DU but it’s private). If that one school in Colorado that sees a drop in black enrollment is CU, it will be even more embarassing for that university and for our state as it is a public school. CU needs to be more PROactive in recruiting minority students, not the other way around. I hope this amendment is defeated. I am elated it is this close.
If fewer minority students meet the academic qualifications to attend CU and thus are underrepresented, how is that CU’s problem? It isn’t like CU’s main problem with minority representation is the result of the qualified minority students avoiding it. Much of it is a broader question of affordability and a lot of it is the failure of our K-12 system in preparing the students for CU. Yes, I know CU has had a couple high-profile cases of racism that were blown way out of proportion (one idiot does not mean the campus has a race issue) but I don’t see CU as hostile to minority students…the diversity ticket dominates the student government.
And CU DOES put a lot into minority recruitment. They have the SORCE program run under the student union that spends a good chunk of change reaching out to middle and high schools with underrepresented populations. Again, I just don’t think it is CU’s problem and I don’t think Affirmative Action solves anything.
….because they disagreed with your view.
because that’s what people want to know. The result of 47 would be to eliminate unions in this state. And you’ll notice I didn’t describe it as outlaw unions, just eliminate.
Do you have an example of another state that passed right to work and had unionization collapse controlling for other factors that might cause a drop in unionization (or at least controlling for the national trend)?
If not, there is no basis for your claim. I imagine the reason there is lower unionization in RtW states is not because of RtW so much as those low rates helped bring RtW about. If I’m not mistaken, most states that have it have had RtW for decades.
Indeed, the lower unionization is probably more a symbol of cultural differences in the states that have RtW than any behavioral repercussions from union free-riding.
Just how has that eliminated unions?
I still believe many will choose to join the union and that is great. However, Union Bosses will now be accountable and thugs like Ernie Duran and Bob Ewegen (Corp Boss) will make better decisions.
…and YES on 54 to stop corrupt bastards
Considering almost half of registered voters had already cast their ballots by the time it was conducted?
since fewer respondents will change their minds.
The issue is no less important than the others, but the others have been polled multiple times, and 51 not at all any time recently.
…59 is far important than 51.
…that there will be some fallout from the R-T-L’ers because the GOP Crown Jewel and his candidates failed to campaign for A-48?
Right to lifers include the anti death penalty crowd…life is above all comes 1st.
ps. What is the GOP crown jewel? I mean can you name one situation where the GOP will flip a seat anywhere in the USA (besides that Aurora Colorado House seat)?
Come on ladies, I challenge anyone to name another seat the GOP will flip?
I’ve got three for you.
FL-16, Mahoney (D) has put himself in a world of hurt with a sex scandal.
PA-11 The polling puts Kanjorski (D) a bit behind Barletta (R).
TX-22 Lampson (D) won this district only because it was former dear leader Tom DeLay’s seat and his name was on the ballot in 2006.
Can’t even name a state or local race?
is a lock to flip. And, as a Steelers fan (born and raised on the North Side of Pittsburgh) it’ll be good to have a Rooney in the House. They’re eminently reasonable R’s, and Tom Rooney will represent FL-16 with much more honor and credibility than Mahoney or Foley ever did.
On the state level…I think Sara Gagliardi loses her House seat in a close race. That’s my out on a limb prediction.
Just curious.
She fought an uphill battle to get it and now the R’s have a credible candidate to try to take it back.
Sara is an incredible campaigner though and there is a pretty good GOTV effort going on there in her favor.
In the end I think she will pull out a win, if only barely.
John Murtha is in a world of hurt after he said: “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.”
Murtha’s being challenged by Republican William Russell, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who moved to Johnstown to run against him.
“Democratic Rep. John Murtha leads retired Army Lt. Col. William Russell by a little more than 4 percentage points, within the Susquehanna Poll’s 4.9-point margin of error. The poll of 400 likely voters was conducted for the Tribune-Review on Tuesday, amid uproar over Murtha’s statement that some of his constituents are racist.” October 23, 2008
It’ll be closer than expected, but he’ll win by 5-8.
You really shouldn’t call your constituency racist, dog.
If it quacks like a duck, you might as well call it one.
Go figger.
Dick Wadhams
Quite a turnaround if 52 goes down. Didn’t Ciruli have it up at about 70% awhile back?
How did the boy wonders snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
If 58 goes down, it will be because of an inept campaign that waited too long to fire up, thus allowing the opposition to define the issue. Also forgot the second part of winning big on the Front Range…shaving the margin of loss on the West Slope and in rural areas. Not smart tactically when you know from the start you’ll be outspent and outmanned. Maybe Andrew and Cary should have been in charge of this one.
I had seen pro ads long before I saw anti ones.
I thought the pro-58 message was well done.
Unfortunately so was the anti one.
Also, having every paper in the state oppose your issue is hard to overcome.
Glad you’ve seen a 58 ad, Dan. Still lookin’ for ’em over here on west of the divide. I’m hopeful about 58 but not at all optimistic. Ritter et al were behind the curve. The energy industry captured the critical ground early and held it. Those editorial endorsements are not automatic, they’re cultivated. I’m unaware of any attempt to outflank or counter industry or Club 20 misreprentations on an organized basis.
Why does anyone with an IQ greater than 50 try to reason with Liberturd?
I hold alternate opinions to yours on some areas of policy and it drives you bananas. You are a drone of some far left spawning.
Unlike you I think and rationalize. Just like 49, don’t support it, but support 54 and 47. Why, because unlike you I don’t follow the Bosses.
Might 47/54 cut into political “donations” or give people the freedom to associate. Yep. Might they hold corporations and governments accountable for their sole source deals. Yep.
sometimes just like hearing themselves talk.