CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 11, 2010 01:25 AM UTC
31 Comments
targeted by the far-right Clear the Bench Campaign. He was retained by Colorado voters with about 61.2 percent of the vote as were his colleagues. That was a few points under the roughly 2-1 margins most Court of Appeals Judges earned but otherwise Clear the Bench seems to have utterly failed in its objective of a right-wing purge to the Court.
Sic Semper Blowhardis
can expect 10 more years of total irrelevance before we next thrash their sorry asses;-)
In my observation, he flew solo. Over and over and over again
“Plaintiff can bite my shiny metal ass. Dismissed!”
That was my first thought when I saw the headline: “Bender Named Chief Justice”
Pols had to ruin the fun and actually put his first name in the headline. 😛
I think after the commission does their thing, the Chief also gets to review the plan and decide “yes or no” as regards constitutionality.
I don’t believe the Chief Justice reviews the work of the reapportionment commission unless and until the commission’s work is challenged in state court. So sayeth the Psalms.
…for important details
that, plus having your ear to the ground can produce mud in the ears…
The court as a whole has the final say on legislative reapportionment, not the Chief Justice alone. Chief Justice, however, makes the 4 appointments on his/her authority.
Last time, two of the democrats, Nancy Rice and Hodges, sided with Republicans Coats and Kourlis and rejected the Senate plan, which would have precluded Mark Hillman from winning the 18th and decisive seat for the Republicans. The result of the rehearing was that Hillman was able to win the seat.
Without that, Andrews would not have had the votes to attempt his infamous Midnight Gerrymander. When the court struck down that Gerrymander Hillman joined in bashing the court. I called him on his hypocrisy. His answer: “One correct ruling doesn’t excuse what they’ve done.”
I actually regard this as the chief flaw in the reapportionment plan, since it gives a key role to the chief justice in appointing members and then gives the same chief justice at least a role in reviewing his or her appointees work.
I’d rather have the elected officials in the lege name 4 and 4 and let the commission agree on the ninth appointee. If they don’t agree, then, and only then, I’d have the court name the tie-breaker.
Alternatively, have the tie-breaker, in event of deadlock, named by a rep of the American Arbitration Assn. (This is the way we choose labor arbitrators, each side proposes a list and you pick the first person on both lists.)
I checked the court’s website! (yes, I know how to use the internet sometimes, when it interests me).
Meanwhile the court has the final say in the commission’s work only if the commission’s work is challenged in state court. If people don’t like the court’s opinion, they should stop askin’!
as to the court deciding lawsuits: D’uh!
That doesn’t change the fact that there is a potential conflict of interest between having the chief justice make appointments at the beginning of the process, then rule on any challenges to the work of his/her appointees at the end of it.
The authors assumed the chief justice would be above politics. But the first time it came up, the chief justice — whose name actually was hodges — was an old Republican wheelhorse from the days when judges ran on partisan labels. He packed the commission with partisan republicans like Bob Lee and they reamed the Ds royally. Mullarkey kind of evened the score in 2002.
The one time I really did see the court above the battle was the year Luis Rovira was CJ and he really did go for a fairly balanced set of appointments. Very few complaints that year. But short of a constitutional amendment requiring Luis Rovira to be chief justice forever, I think it’s time we got the court out of the commissioner appointing business.
PS==yes, this is the same justice Hobbs that McInnis plagiarized. A real expert on water and natural resource law.
…please
Mullarkey named 4 non-Republicans in a scenario where she was REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION to name 3 non-Republicans (to keep the balance mandated by the constitution after Owens, et al. had stacked the commission the other way). So, Mullarkey could’ve picked 1 more Republican than she did. This hardly constiutes evidence of anything at all (much less evening the score).
you really don’t know anything about this subject but want to sound off anyway.
The thought that Mullarkey would pick a Republican is silly. She did go out of her way to pick strongly partisan democrats. And two of her own court, Rice and Hobbs, voted to overturn their work.
Enough said.
I’ve given you facts and you’ve responded with bitterness, without responding to the facts presented at all. Noted, dearest. (NB: more than 2 of “her own court” voted to overturn the commission’s work. 4 did. And she had no more control of their votes in this case than in any other case)
As originally stated, there were five democrats on the court, two of whom, hobbs and rice, joined the two rs, coats and khourlis, to overturn the work of Markey’s appointees.
I didn’t respond with bitterness, you simply blew an opinion out of your ass so you could appear to be knowledgeable.
Hardly the first time, sweetie;-)
(i.e, that 3 of her 4 picks were mandated by the constitution). cover your eyes!!!!! it burns
Oh, as “originally stated” by you, Hodges was still on the court. D’oh!
This is my last response to your trollishness tonight. You get the last word. Try hard to make it a bit less stupid that your previous posts.
…as cemented by your admission that quoting from your post is very different from referencing facts. Sweetnesssssssssssssssss
Isn’t there a rule against these endless back-and-forths between two Polsters?
Frankly, if Voyageur and Jambalaya were exiled to the Penalty Box, I bet lots of others (myself included) would violate some rules pronto to get in there with them.
And, I still like Voyeurism (er, -ageur). He simply way wrong tonight. He can’t be right all the time, it’s unseemly! (I should know)
with only Jammypants for company is enough to drive me to Square State!
The Supreme Court reviews the state legislative reapportionment plan per the Constitution.
Colo. Const. art. V, sec. 48(1)(e). The reapportionment process does not involve the state courts.
Much easier to hear from you than to look up shit myself!
recounting the role chief justices play in legislative reapportionment games.
http://www.jerrykopel.com/b/Re…
It’s only flaw is quoting some doofus editorial writer…