Home > Political Notebook > Archives > 2007 > November
November 2007
“Anchor babies” in utero
Ever since a ballot measure aimed at defining a fertilized egg as a human being (and hence rendering abortion murder) got rolling this year, a number of possible, interesting legal side effects have come to Political Notebook’s attention, including possible tax implications under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and the need to allow fertilized eggs access to the courts.
However, my colleagues at the Square State blog have raised yet another interesting side effect of the anti-abortion measure, this time involving illegal immigration.
The issue of “anchor babies,” children (and U.S. citizens) born in the United States to non-citizens*, has been of interest in Colorado for some time, even if under the breathes of even the staunchest anti-illegal immigration advocates. Recall in the 2006 special session when Sen. Ron Teck, R-Grand Junction, and Rep. Al White, R-Hayden, introduced a measure to encourage the modification of the U.S. Constitution to disallow automatic naturalization.
Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, also got into the fray, albeit tacitly, during a recent appearance on PBS’s Colorado State of Mind, when he said: “In my mind if you’re born in the United States, you are a United States citizen and entitled to the benefits of being a United States citizen. And we should support those people to be successful.” In other words: Leave the 14th Amendment as it is, including automatic citizenship for illegal immigrants’ children.
Getting back to the issue at hand, any egg fertilized in the state of Colorado would, under the proposed ballot language, be a living human and thus “born.” Therefore, the deportation of pregnant illegal immigrants could get legally messy in Colorado, because somewhere inside that woman’s womb is a living U.S. citizen floating around.
The anti-illegal immigration movement and the anti-abortion crowd are usually seen as stalwart Republicans. This interpretation of the constitutional amendment could put those two groups at odds.
*Yes, the term “anchor baby” is offensive, but it’s part of the debate — including how Grand Junction’s state senator in 2006 framed his bill, mentioned in the above posting.
Notebook closed
Political Notebook will be on vacation from work (and, alas, the blog) through Dec. 1. If something big breaks, I might resurface to post.
Until then, take care and enjoy winter’s onset.
Permalink | |
Rowland not keen on supporting open space
Mesa County Commissioner Janet Rowland’s opponent’s gained yet another avenue to attack the incumbent on: the open space issue.
“I think open space is a waste of government money more than anything else,” Rowland said during a budget meeting this week.
Granted Rowland has not been the biggest advocate for open space in the county, but this is a somewhat shocking thing to say outright at a public meeting, especially during a re-election campaign.
Make no mistake: Rowland is a strong candidate and is favored to win any primary contest she might have. Nonetheless statements like these are not the best way to win over voters who value open space and conservative values. (The same bloc of voters her 2006 gubernatorial running mate, Bob Beauprez, failed to win over.)
Somewhere, Republican insurgent County Commission candidate Dave Kearsley probably is smiling.
* * *
It’s worth noting this is not the first time Rowland has made a seemingly out-of-left-field comment on the public stage. Recall how her statement on public television comparing homosexuality to bestiality were prominently mentioned in articles on her status as a lieutenant gubernatorial candidate.
*Rowland photo from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Permalink | |
Voters shall not poll on immigration alone
Outgoing Congressman Tom Tancredo’s foundering presidential bid has left some wondering how potent illegal immigration is as an issue ahead of the 2008 election cycle. Indeed, a Politico story posted over the weekend stated: “If there was a wave for Tancredo to ride during this election cycle to become some sort of factor in the race, it was one based on the concern about illegal immigration that pollsters and political operatives believe could be a key factor in the 2008 elections. Politicos keep saying immigration is one of the warmest of the hot-button issues.
“So what happened to Tom Tancredo?”
Granted the Littleton Republican’s power to push the illegal immigration issue has suffered due to not only his lack of momentum, but also his lack of money. Nonetheless, the issue should have helped him poll above 2 percent in support among GOP primary voters, if you believed the early primary buzz.
So what does this mean for Colorado?
Not that Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, was ever vulnerable heading into his 2008 electoral contest, but Tancredo’s failure to ride the issue above 2 percent support could mean the issue (as pushed by King and others) might not have much traction outside a small group of voters. (Yes, even though illegal immigration is the No. 1 issue in Colorado that might be in the abstract, not with regard to specific policy initiatives.)
Beyond King, Tancredo’s failure to use the issue as a political slingshot could mean that Colorado’s GOP state lawmakers might be unable to use the issue in and of itself to retake seats in the General Assembly next year. Much like presidential primary voters are showing with regard to Tancredo, illegal immigration alone does not a campaign make.
*Tancredo photo from the Associated Press.
Permalink | |
An 800+ lane elephant
Transportation will likely be the 800-pound cliche sitting in back of the state Capitol during the 2008 session.
With a panel convened by Gov. Bill Ritter recommending a steep bill of fee and tax hikes to deliver millions or billions of dollars to the Colorado Department of Transportation’s capital-starved highway, road and bridge grid, lawmakers undoubtedly will be eyeing ways to make the funding a reality.
That’s easier said than referred to the ballot, though.
Given the governor’s promise to only refer one measure to the ballot in 2008, transportation might have to wait a year or two to get addressed. (It’s hard to imagine how all of the disparate tax and fee hikes required to raise $500 million, $1 billion, $1.5 billion or $2 billion could be compressed under a single subject, as Colorado law requires.)
Ritter and state lawmakers certainly will have their work cut out for them next session. Even if the tax and fee hikes are necessary, it’s also hard to imagine lawmakers in moderate districts (such as Grand Junction’s House District 55) backing a massive tax increase ahead of a high turnout election.
Waiting to address the issue, though, might work in policymakers’ favors. Indeed, as the roads degrade and bridges falter, voters might be more amiable to paying more at the pump and in other places to have a smoother drive throughout the state.
*Traffic photo from The Daily Sentinel archives. Ritter photo from the Associated Press.
Permalink | |
Challenging Rowland
My apologies for the long absence from posting. When news breaks, so does my blog-writing rhythm.
The local political world has been awash with some low-level but notable news, including the ascension of a second intra-party challenge for a sitting county commissioner. Indeed, this week local attorney Dave Kearsley, a Republican, said he is considering taking on Commissioner Janet Rowland.
Rowland, perhaps more than Meis, has a following that permeates inside and outside of Mesa County. Everyone knows her or, at least, has heard of her. The incumbent commissioner, who will “officially” announce her already five-month old re-election bid this weekend, ran on unsuccessful 2006 gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez’s ticket and, more recently, has championed the county’s child abuse problems.
Granted she has her problems, which could make her more vulnerable than Commissioner Craig Meis to an intra-party challenge, Rowland starts out this race a heavily favored incumbent.
Only if Kearsley can run an effective critical (but not too negative) campaign can he even hope to win enough votes at the county assembly to even make the ballot. Though he could argue that her behavior, equating bestiality to homosexuality and the plagiarism incident, has tainted Mesa County’s image across the state, it will be interesting to see if he even broaches the issue.
Again, Rowland is a strong incumbent. Everyone knows her. Kearsley’s only hope is that how voters know Rowland plays in his favor.
*Rowland photos from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Permalink | |
Taylor disputes White’s ‘exploiter’ label
Term-limited Sen. Jack Taylor, R-Steamboat Springs, said any attempt to label Rep. Al White, R-Hayden, a “Western Slope exploiter” is specious at best.
White’s probable primary-election opponent, Eagle County resident Muhammad Ali Hasan, has attacked White for his desire to use a portion of federal mineral leasing revenues to fund higher education in Colorado. In addressing that policy, he told a Vail newspaper that White was diverting energy impact funds away from northwest Colorado.
“No, I don’t think it’s accurate at all,” Taylor told Political Notebook.
Taylor said his friend and successor in House District 57 has been at the forefront of making sure the region got its fair cut of mineral revenues — not to mention the fact that the Western Slope will see some of those higher education funds through the region’s colleges.
“That’s just a phony argument,” he said.
*Taylor photo from the Associated Press.
Businesses, CDOT chief undercut GOP unionization complaints
Gov. Bill Ritter’s employee associations executive order and Democratic state lawmakers score two coups this morning, with the disclosures that business leaders are not so homogenously miffed as Republican lawmakers and Colorado Department of Transportation Director Russ George set the precedent for the governor’s order.
According to the Denver Business Journal: “Business leaders described themselves as ‘surprised’ by Gov. Bill Ritter’s executive order giving unions a place at the table in labor negotiations with state employees. But they lack the bitter outrage expressed by Republican politicians who claim the action will stifle the state’s economy and hurt businesses.”
And according to the Pueblo Chieftain: “A Republican Cabinet member in Gov. Bill Ritter’s administration already has found the governor’s plan to “partner” with state workers beneficial to running his department. But Russell George, executive director of the Colorado Department of Transportation, would have done that anyway, the former GOP House speaker said.”
These articles run counter to the assertions of Colorado Republican lawmakers who have said, “The governor’s action launches the state down a slippery slope that could lead to binding arbitration and even strikes by state employees.”
By presenting former House Speaker and Owens administration cabinet member George, R-Rifle, at the center of the debate and the business community as fractured in the unionization discussion, the Democratic lawmakers have found some cover for their support of Ritter’s order. Thus, when the GOP’s bill to kill the executive order (sponsored by Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction; Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield; Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, and Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Genesee) hits its first committee hearing, expect that panel to kill the bill, provided the committee’s swing votes are not up for re-election in 2008.
*George photo from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Permalink | |
Sentence construction and the Second Amendment
Beyond the walls of a newsroom, there are, perhaps, few places where sentence construction invokes heated debate. However, the U.S. Supreme Court may find itself engaged in just such an argument if it agrees to hear a controversial gun-rights lawsuit rising up through the lower courts.
The question that could confront the U.S. Supreme Court is simple: How does the sentence construction of the Second Amendment affect its meaning. That is, how does the amendment’s introductory clause — “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” — condition or affect the amendment’s second half — “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
(For more background and context, Linda Greenhouse does a better job explaining this case than I could ever hope to, so you should read it before going any further into this posting. The widely lauded SCOTUS blog also has a great analysis of the case here.)
Assuming, of course, the court agrees to hear the case (an announcement could come as early as Tuesday), expect to hear a cacophony from policymakers, activists and gun owners as the case nears its oral arguments. Indeed, the Second Amendment seems to attract controversy and zealous opinions more so than abortion, drug policy or federalism.
Even having done a stint at the high court myself as a correspondent, I’m not going to hazard a guess on how this will play out. (Even the most ardent original-interpretation advocates could fall somewhere on the fence on this one given the multitude of factors in the case, including the District of Columbia’s non-statehood, whether modern handguns are comparable to 18th Century guns, the federal circuits’ splits in jurisprudence, etc.) Nonetheless, expect a grammar lesson to be a part of any court opinions if the justices issue any ruling in the case.
* * *
That all said, I am curious how you think the Second Amendment should be read. … Don’t be gun-shy.
*Supreme Court photo from the Associated Press.
Add one state senator and stir …
Grand Junction’s state senator, it seems, has been drawn into the looming confrontation between Grand Junction Reps. Steve King and Bernie Buescher.
Upon hearing that Gov. Bill Ritter and Democrat Buescher decided to float their own method for refunding the Colorado State Veterans Trust Fund, the freshman Republican representative reached for the big guns: Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction.
“I have a hard time seeing how the governor’s proposal is being a good steward of our tax dollars. … I have asked Senator Penry to carry this bill in the Senate,” King told Political Notebook in an e-mail.
Penry, always willing to cosponsor his local peers’ legislation, confirmed in his own e-mail to us that he agreed to be King’s cosponsor.
“I am going to carry it in the Senate, yes,” Penry wrote. “You don’t repay trust funds by raiding another one. The effect of the governor’s proposal is exactly that — it raids the capital and transportation trust funds to repay the Veteran’s (Trust Fund). It’s just not a responsible approach.”
Though Penry agreed with King’s fiscal philosophy, he added that this political storm might not grow into a political maelstrom: “I suspect at some point this spring, Steve and Bernie and I will sit down and figure out a way to make this work.”
The important thing, Penry said, is that the account get repaid. That point of agreement, he said, should be able to spark some level of compromise.
*Penry, Buescher photos from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Permalink | |
Doody’s primary bid: An early assessment
With Grand Junction Mayor Jim Doody’s not-so-secret electoral considerations out in public, what are his chances of coming out ahead in a Mesa County Commission primary race?
Make no mistake: Doody, who has strong name recognition in the county, would be a formidable primary challenger for incumbent County Commissioner Craig Meis. However, Doody’s chances hinge not on his strength as a candidate but his ability to peel away support from Meis.
Indeed, Meis is the establishment candidate. Doody probably will have to run as an insurgent candidate, which means he will have to run a campaign that takes shots at Meis’ record on the commission. Whether that means targeting his energy industry ties (as the environmental community has) or finding other areas of concern, Doody will have to get his talking points and broader strategy in order — not to mention prepping for attacks on his record in municipal government.
Even if Doody can poke holes in Meis’ record, the city councilman has to provide an alternative to the current regime. Compared to the insurgency Doody has to mount, this could be the easier task.
As for the money side of the equation: Meis has already raised more than $4,000 as of Oct. 27, but $2,000 of that total came from local businessman John Moss, who has a history of giving to any and all Republican candidates. (According to campaign finance filings from the Colorado Secretary of State’s Web site, Moss, his wife and their registered LLCs have given thousands of dollars to local GOP candidates in 2006 alone.) … If Doody can bump off Meis in the primary, expect Moss to give the mayor a sizeable chunk of change as well.
In other words: Doody can overcome Meis’ fundraising advantage, granted he can sell himself to donors and build some momentum.
This is all not to say Doody is a shoo-in. Make no mistake about it: Meis is a deft statesman. He has a statewide profile most recently bolstered by his widely lauded work on an interim committee assigned to reform how Colorado collected and spends its severance tax and federal mineral leasing revenues.
* * *
More broadly, Doody’s primary challenge could further fracture the local Republican Party, which has had its share of divisive elections, including 2005’s Referendum C and 2006’s primary face-off between then-Rep. Josh Penry and former Rep. Matt Smith. With House District 55 again in play this election, with Republican Laura Bradford squaring off with two-term incumbent Rep. Bernie Buescher, D-Grand Junction, intra-party fractures could distract and turn off voters ahead of the general election.
Then again, Doody’s bid could invigorate supports on both sides of the primary race, add to the excitement of the 2006 cycle (for down-ticket races) and turn out more voters, which would not only help Bradford, but also GOP U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer and the Republican presidential candidate.
We’ll keep you posted as this race develops.
*Doody, Meis photos from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Permalink | |
Vet fund fight brewing
How the Colorado State Veterans Trust Fund will be repaid the $2.3 million it lost during the 2003 session, it seems, probably will spark a fight between Grand Junction’s two representatives, Democrat Bernie Buescher and Republican Steve King.
Both Buescher and King are planning to run bills to refill the trust fund, which was set up in 2000 to underwrite grants for veteran-assistance programs or projects. Though they share a goal, the ways Buescher and King’s respective bills refill the fund are significantly different.
To understand the differences, let’s first address some Colorado budget basics: Under 1991’s Arveschoug-Bird law, Colorado’s General Fund spending can only grow 6 percent from year to year. Legislation from subsequent sessions funnels all revenues received by the state in excess of the spending cap but below revenue caps set by 1992’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Right (which 2005’s Referendum C temporarily lifted) into the state’s transportation and capital construction budgets.
King’s bill, which he announced last month, would use funds from under the 6 percent General Fund spending-growth cap. Buescher’s bill would use funds above the 6 percent spending-growth cap.
Hence, as King pointed out in Saturday’s newspaper, Buescher’s plan ultimately will affect into road and capital construction spending.
“Obviously the goal here is that the veterans are paid back,” King said Friday. “But I also want to make sure we’re not having some impact on transportation funding.”
Buescher told Political Notebook after Saturday’s downtown Veterans Day parade that the important thing is refilling the trust fund. He said he is hopeful he and King can work out their bills’ differences.
Buescher said he has assurances the Colorado Department of Transportation will not fight his bill, and the governor, who has asked that the state refund the account in the 2008-2009 fiscal year, will not veto his legislation.
Watch for this to be an issue during the 2008 session.
*Buescher, King photos from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Permalink | |
Blue dollars, red cents
As of the end of October, the Mesa County’s Democratic Party had outpaced the Mesa County Republican Party in cash on-hand by more than a four-to-one ratio: $14,882.54 to $3,355.89.
The discrepancy is a good indication of the Democratic Party’s preparations to bolster incumbent Rep. Bernie Buescher’s re-election bid in 2008. Mary Beth Pyle, chairwoman of the Mesa County Democratic Party, said the funds should put the party “solidly behind Bernie” in his ’08 bid.
That said, it’s worth noting that the local Republican Party has proven itself to have deep pockets. Also the individual races, including the Buescher-Laura Bradford race will hinge more on the candidates’ finances than their respective local parties, the local parties’ on-hand funds are worth noting.
For what its worth, the Mesa County Green Party reported having $557.57 on hand as of the end of last month, up nearly $234 from the end of December thanks to a contribution from perennial candidate Eric Rechel’s old campaign committee.
*Chart generated from data at the Colorado Secretary of State’s Web site.
Permalink | |
A libertarian to challenge Salazar
With the Colorado Republican Party mum on an official candidate to square off with two-term incumbent Congressman John Salazar, D-Colo., the Colorado Libertarian Party has stepped up to the plate.
In an e-mail to the press this morning, Pueblo West resident and electrical technician Steven McDuffie announced he will take on Salazar: “I am currently the only candidate running against John Salazar. Though I am running as a Libertarian, I am a ‘Ron Paul Republican,’ so it should be an interesting contest.”
McDuffie, 41, who will make his first public appearance at the Rifle Public Library on Nov. 20 at 6:30 p.m., expanded on his candidacy on a bulletin board at the Colorado Libertarian Party’s Web site:
“Who stands to gain? I’ll get a pretty good job out of the deal, if elected, but more realistically, the concept of libertarianism stands to gain. I have been told for years that I am an above average spokesman for freedom. If I can help out in any way at all, we all gain. Don’t think I am going to lie and say I won’t be quite pleased with myself if I do well making speeches and in radio and newspaper interviews: I will.”
Wow. That’s one way to announce you’ve arrived.
(It’s worth noting, McDuffie’s e-mail address listed on the forum belongs to Helmerich & Payne, Inc., an oil and gas exploration and production company. Given the reaction of wildlife enthusiasts and outdoorsmen to U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer’s energy-industry ties, this could hurt the southern Coloradan’s electoral bid on the Western Slope.)
* * *
Don’t read too much into this posting. Third-party candidates rarely grab more than a small sliver of any election’s votes. Last year, the Libertarian Party candidates for governor and the 3rd Congressional District grabbed less than 2 percent of the vote in each of their races. … Expect McDuffie to do about the same next year.
*Libertarian Party candidate Bert Sargent, pictured above second from the right, failed to gain much traction at all in the 2006 3rd Congressional District race. Photo from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Workplace liabilities
Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman’s decision to jump into the 6th Congressional District race has drawn the attention of a number of Colorado political observers who have generally agreed he is the presumed frontrunner — at least this early in the contest.
However, comments Thursday at separate Joint Budget Committee hearings by Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Janice Rich and Rep. Bernie Buescher, D-Grand Junction, could be indicative of an issue Coffman will have to confront: Is this current job more of a liability than a platform to launch his congressional bid?
Essentially Rich said she was upset at Coffman’s lack of communication with her office concerning the recertification issues between the county’s voting machine vendor, ES&S, and Coffman’s office. A failure for the state to recertify ES&S could render Mesa County’s voting machines unusable in the 2008 election and force the county to either dump millions of dollars into new machines (not to mention the cost of retraining its elections staff) or use a mail-only, paper ballot.
(For the record, Rich called Political Notebook this morning and disputed Coffman’s office’s statement that the two election officials met three weeks ago: “We’ll probably dispute whether he was in Grand Junction or not, but he certainly wasn’t in the clerk and recorder’s office.” That places Coffman and Rich’s most recent meeting in August to discuss the statewide voter registration system, not ES&S’s recertification.)
Buescher’s comments, which came at a budget setting hearing in the morning, hinted that a failure to get the recertification process back on track could result in Colorado’s 2008 election exploding like Florida’s 2000 election did: “None of us want to be the Florida of the 2008 election when we can’t get our results out because our equipment has not been adequately prepared.”
Coffman may have been a successful state lawmaker and state treasurer, but his current job probably will be the basis of his primary opponent’s barbs. No doubt, his issues in Mesa County combined with his office’s ethics issues, unearthed after one of his close associates used his office’s resources for partisan purposes, will be among the talking points of both his GOP and Democratic opponents.
Though Coffman has only threatened to step down from his office, you have to wonder if his advisers will push him to step down to improve his chances of winning Littleton Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo’s seat.
*Coffman, Rich, Buescher photos from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Permalink | |
An early look at the W. Slope’s 2008 battleground and safe-seat races
With the 2008 election approaching, let’s take a broad look at Western Slope state House and Senate races that should be the most interesting to watch and those that are, at this point, likely to favor incumbents.
The placement of races on these lists is sourced solely to Political Notebook’s reporting and conversations with political observers.
Races to watch
Senate District 8 — The most fascinating aspect of this race will be the Republican primary. Rep. Al White, R-Hayden, has a strong base throughout the district, which largely overlaps with his current House district. However, that support only truly matters during the general election.
White’s already vocal challenger, Muhammad Ali Hasan, is aiming to capitalize on the right wing of the Republican Party’s frustration with White and his willingness to cross the aisle. In other words: Expect this race to hinge on whether White can turn out his supporters within the region’s counties’ Republican parties. The religion factor, if a historically conservative district will vote for a Muslim, is a wildcard in this race.
House District 55 — As always, Democratic Grand Junction Rep. Bernie Buescher’s seat should be an interesting race to watch. With Republican Laura Bradford already on deck and itching to talk property taxes, this should be a fascinating race to test whether Democrats can overcome some of the party’s possibly problematic positions.
It’s worth noting that we almost did not include this race on the list because of Buescher’s incumbency, his position as the Joint Budget Committee chairman and the possibility that he might be the next speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives. Even moderate Republicans might prefer to have someone that somewhat represents them in a powerful position than a freshman lawmaker in the minority.
House District 57 — As of yet, this race remains wide open. Given the region’s energy development in Garfield and Moffat counties, it’s feasible a moderate or watchdog-minded Democrat (similar to Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison) could turn some heads and deliver the district to the Democrats. (The last time the Dems held this district was back in 1982 when Rep. Kathleen Sullivan, D-Meeker, held the seat.) Nonetheless, expect Republicans to have an initial edge in this race.
House District 58 — With Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose, opting not to run for a fourth term in 2008, this district, which includes Cortez, Telluride, Montrose and Delta, opened for battle. Though the last time the Democrats held the seat was more than two decades ago when Rep. Mike Callihan, D-Gunnison, held the seat.) Though Rose’s presence might have given Montrose City Councilwoman Noelle Hagan something more concrete to run against, an open race does not hurt her. Expect the likely GOP candidate Scott Tipton to run a strong race as well.
Races favoring incumbents
House District 54 — Grand Junction Republican Rep. Steve King’s seat is to the Colorado General Assembly what Littleton Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo’s seat is to Congress: a safe seat. King’s decision to make illegal immigration one of the focal issues of his work next year and the seat’s history as solidly Republican bastion on the Western Slope makes this race almost a nonstarter. If Democrats so qualified as Teresas Coons in 2004 and Rich Alward in 2006 couldn’t get elected, don’t expect a political neophyte to do anything more than scuff up King’s hair in 2008.
House District 61 — Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, is one of the most respected lawmakers both in Denver and in her district. If Congressman John Salazar, D-Colo., were not running for re-election, she would have been a worthy substitute, given her reputation as someone willing to grapple with difficult water and energy issues. The energy industry might fear and revile her, to some degree, but don’t expect her to be in much jeopardy during the 2008 election cycle.
*Photo from the Associated Press.
Retaining term limits
In a narrow vote, Mesa County voters elected to maintain term limits for their present and future sheriffs.
The immediate consequences are obvious: Stan Hilkey will not run for re-election in 2010 and someone (perhaps former Sheriff’s Department investigator and longtime law enforcement officer Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction) will have to step up to the plate to replace him in roughly three years time.
In the long term, it might give us a window into voters’ perceptions of Hilkey. In his own words last night: “It’s a real convenient and easy argument for some of the people that have opposed it to make it look like just another politician trying to keep the job.”
If, in fact, this was all about Hilkey — as he said — and less about the issue, it should give him pause about running for a higher office at the end of his term as sheriff.
The election results also possibly show that for all the strength of the law enforcement corner of the local Republican Party, the limited government folks still hold the upper hand. (The local Democrats’ hands in how the measure came out is less clear: They could have been anti-Hilkey or pro-term limits.)
* * *
Analysis from you, the reader, would be helpful, so please comment away.
*Hilkey photo from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Penk at it again
A Front Range duo that has already submitted several proposed ballot measures for the 2008 ballot, mostly revolving around “peace,” have taken aim at former President Bill Clinton and presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in their latest batch.
Indeed, Page Penk and company have submitted the following ballot measures to the Colorado Legislative Council:
Expect Mr. Penk to prominently feature in any conversations during the 2008 legislative session about making it more difficult to run ballot measures.
If it sounds like a campaign …
Muhammad Ali Hasan might not be formally running for the open state Senate District 8 seat next year, but it sure sounds like he is.
In a somewhat one-sided report, the Vail Daily News has Hasan calling Senate candidate Rep. Al White, R-Hayden, a “Western Slope exploiter” in contrast to his own status as a “Western Slope warrior.”
If that’s not a campaign barb, Political Notebook doesn’t know what is.
Hasan, however, had best watch which barbs he tosses about. His attack on White’s plan to use federal mineral leasing revenues to fund higher education is co-sponsored by one of the Senate and Western Slope’s most prominent Republican lawmakers: Josh Penry.
Logically, Hasan’s quip makes Penry — one of the region’s fiercest advocates on the mineral revenue interim committee — out to be an “Western Slope exploiter” as well.
That can’t be a wise way to make friends with someone you want to work with.
*Hasan photo from his MySpace.com profile. White photo shot by Political Notebook.
Permalink | |
Defining the debate
In its reception to Gov. Bill Ritter’s public-employee associations executive order, The Denver Post’s editorial board was nothing but teeth. Indeed, in a page A1 editorial Sunday the newspaper lashed out at Ritter’s “end-run” around the Legislature:
“Instead of introducing a bill in the legislature that could be debated and fine-tuned — the collaborative process he promised — Ritter junked what has worked for Colorado for decades with the flick of a pen. He didn’t even have the guts to stand before the public and announce his plan. Instead, he sent out a press release late Friday afternoon when he hoped no one was looking.
“It’s government by fiat.”
If the pronunciations of Colorado Republicans — including Grand Junction senator, Josh Penry — are to be believed (and they likely are), Ritter’s executive order will be a major sticking point during the next legislative session. (You could almost hear a bill being drafted in the heads of GOP lawmakers amid the clamor surrounding Ritter’s Friday afternoon announcement.)
Regardless of if you agree with Ritter’s policy, there are several probably outcomes of his executive order. First off, it could refocus the 2008 session away from the issues of transportation funding, health care reform and rewriting how Colorado’s public education system runs. Second of all, the issue could force a split between moderate, pro-business Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Bernie Buescher, D-Grand Junction, and the governor. That sort of tension cannot be good for Democrats and their goals in the 2008 session.
The governor’s best hope is to shift the debate over his plan and recapture the rhetorical advantage. As Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer told Colorado Confidential’s Jim Spencer: “We’re going to focus on what this plan truly is and what it does and doesn’t do.”
Remember: In politics, perception is reality. If Republicans can recast Ritter’s executive order as a favor to unions, the public will follow suit. (The Denver Post’s editorial, however accurate, certainly does not help Ritter’s camp.) Even though most political observers can parse out the nuances of policy — and have time to do so, for that matter — the average voter does not. Whoever can define the debate will largely determine the outcome of this looming political scuffle.
Updated Monday ca.6:30 p.m. — It turns out I was right about a bill being drafted.
*Ritter photo from the Associated Press. Penry photo from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Romanoff’s rainy day
If Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff has his way, Colorado will institute a rainy-day fund during the 2008 legislative session.
The fourth-term Denver Democrat told Political Notebook that he hopes to push through a version of a previous rainy-day fund bill during his final session in the state House.
“Colorado ought to operate like a smart business,” Romanoff said. “We ought to save more for tough times instead of spending it all.”
Rep. Bernie Buescher’s rainy-day fund bill died in the Senate Finance Committee in a tussle with Senate Republicans over transportation funding.
Romanoff said he has been working with Senate leaders and other lawmakers to ensure that the bill clears both houses of the Legislature.
The death of Buescher’s rainy-day fund bill marked the only opening-day promise Romanoff could not keep last session.
*Romanoff photo from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Permalink | |
The ‘de facto’ Senate candidate
It seems the powers that be in the Colorado GOP have set their sights on kneecapping the U.S. Senate candidacy of Republican Delta County Commissioner Wayne Wolf before it even gets going.
According to Post, Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams has attempted to dissuade Wolf from continuing to embark on his long-shot Senate candidacy, referring to former Congressman Bob Schaffer, R-Colo., and the party’s “de facto nominee.”
Coloradopols lays out a fairly solid prediction here: “Wolf will take the ‘deal’ being offered him to run in CD-3 in exchange for getting out of Bob Schaffer’s way — a bargain for GOP strategists, who harbor no delusions about unseating John Salazar in 2008 (and have no plans to spend much money trying) but needed Wolf out of the Senate race before he became a problem.”
Making the sell to Wolf, however, might not be an easy prospect. After all, Wolf has a far greater chance of becoming a U.S. senator in an open race (yes, even running against five-term Congressman Mark Udall, D-Colo.,) than a congressman by running against a two-term incumbent congressman.
Wolf even admitted this to us in September: “I think that there’s two answers to that. One is realistically as difficult as the Senate campaign could be, I actually think that I have a better chance (there) than I would running against an incumbent. We’re talking about an open seat.”
Though Wadhams and company are probably right in trying to prevent another Marc Holtzman scenario with 2008’s GOP Bob, this doesn’t look great for the state party given that state parties typically stay out of endorsing primary candidates, however “de facto” one may be.
*Wolf, Wadhams photos from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Carwile declines to run for HD57
DENVER — Democratic Craig City Councilman Terry Carwile said Thursday he will not run for the open House District 57 seat next year.
The northwestern Colorado district’s current representative, Al White, R-Hayden, is stepping down (due to term limits) to pursue term-limited Sen. Jack Taylor’s Senate District 7 seat.
Carwile, who was in Denver for the mineral revenue interim committee’s final meeting, said one House run in 2002 was enough for him, and the open nature of White’s seat did not make it any more appealing.
*Carwile photo from The Daily Sentinel archives.
Permalink | |
