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%
April 12, 2009 09:18 PM UTC
22 Comments
Well done. I grew up with Udall as my rep, and I have (almost) always thought him to be an admirable person and representative. Well done, sir. Keep it up.
What those opposed to hate crimes laws don’t understand or choose to ignore is that yes, all violent crimes may be caused by hate, but there is a difference between the burning of a cross on an Africa-American family’s lawn and a caucasian family’s lawn or the painting of a Swastika on a Jewish family’s door and on a Christian family’s door. In the former example the victims are not just those who reside in the house, but the entire group of people who share their race/religion and they are not simply victims of a property crime.
If hate crimes laws had any effect on reducing crime, I’d be all for them. But they don’t.
“Wow, Bubba, we almost went and killed that faggot. Good thing you remembered we’d get extra time if we got caught! Whew!” NOT!
I might feel a little more sympathetic if minorities who perpetrate vicious crimes with an apparent hate motive against whites were charged with such things.
Can anyone tell me when that last happened?
I think a significant part of this law is that we as a society are stating that crimes like this are especially henious. So even if it has no effect on the crime rate, it is still a strong statement by society.
differentiation in hate crimes between “whites” and “African-Americans”. The laws that are on the books state that if the crime is based on “race or ethnicity” it is considered to be a hate crime. It does not designate that the perpetrator need be “white” and the victim need be “non-white” in order to be prosecuted.
Further, we have laws on the books against rape (robbery, assault, murder) yet there are still rapes (robberies, assaults and murders)…are you suggesting we should eliminate those laws since they are ineffective?
I guess when you are a straight, white, male it is pretty easy to say let’s do away with, or not enact such laws….
But they are not the practice. That’s part of what I was saying.
I don’t know if I have EVER heard of a minority being charged with a hate crime.
heard about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Here is one such case:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0…
One.
Regardless of that ONE, it is still rather rare.
It is rather rare because the act of intimidating, injuring, or threatening an entire group of people for being white is rare. Where is the equivalent cross-burning-on the-lawn-crime you are speaking of? The one that frightens an entire (white) neighborhood from going to school, work, or the grocery store. Again, these are not meant to protect a black guy from being beat up by a white guy. You have to show how the crime affects a community. And with Federal Laws there are a very specific set of Federally Protected Activities…interfering with the act of going to school, voting, public transportation, etc, based on gender, color, and so on. It’s not about “He can say the n-word, why can’t I?” crap.
They’re, you know, minorities.
Now you know I don’t march lock step. Note my current signature, Jamby.
Hate crime laws are feel good measures, they don’t do a damned thing in practice. And I get very nervous when we start condemning thought, no matter how heinous.
…is someone who complains that a law does no good (but, instead, is a condemnation of “thought”), but who says he would feel better if the law were used to punish black, brown, and gay people.
That someone is you, right?
I’ve often been confounded on some of your thought processes, such as they are.
Let me summarize: 1)There is no evidence that hate crime laws reduce crime. To me, that is the only good reason for such laws. 2) The laws that we have are not applied equally. It seems that only whites are guilty of hate crimes, yet it’s obvious that minorities participate in hate crimes and yet are not charged.
Don’t you have a problem with that?
You should.
The defendant in the Angie Zapata murder isn’t white, parsing.
for such laws. Punishment is also a good reason for such laws.
since study after study has shown it has no effect on deterring crime. Right?
Udall says “Unlike federal law, Colorado has a strong hate crimes statute”
I agree hate crimes are particularly reprehensible and should be prosecuted accordingly. But why do we need a federal law?
A lot of the drug laws were “federalized” in the past 25 years, I couldn’t see the rationale for that except for some politician to claim he was “tough on drugs” at election time. Meanwhile the courts got clogged with drug cases, and federal prisons filled with drug offenders who would be better off in treatment.
Can anyone give me a reason why this issue has to be “federalized” when the proper jurisdiction would appear to be at the state level?
should be condemned on every level possible. Parsingreality has a good point above that these laws have very little practical effect, but the symbolism of an act is important, and we want to condemn hate crimes every way possible.
The question is whether to broaden it to include bias-motivated crimes against victims based on gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.
If it’s OK to have a federal ethnic intimidation law, do you believe we should leave crimes based on sexual orientation out of the definition of hate crimes?
Or do you think it’s best to repeal the current federal hate crime law and leave it to the individual states and small towns to prosecute all hate crimes, include those aimed at race, ethnicity and religion?