Trey Rogers Leaving Ritter's Office

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 16:04:42 PM MST

Gov. Bill Ritter announced today that his Chief Legal Counsel, Trey Rogers, will leave his office to return to private practice effective March 1. Gov. Ritter has named his Senior Deputy Legal Counsel, Craig Welling, to the Chief Counsel position.

Welling has served as Senior Deputy Legal Counsel for three years. Prior to joining Gov. Ritter's office, he was a litigation attorney with Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, LLP in Denver.

Rogers has served as Chief Legal Counsel since Gov. Ritter took office.  He will re-join Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, LLP as a partner, the position he held prior to joining the Governor's office.

Of course, Trey Rogers has been more than just "Chief Legal Counsel" under Ritter. Rogers has always been one of Ritter's closest advisors, on both political and policy questions, and his departure from the office will certainly change the way things are done (or not done) as the Governor enters his final 10 months in office.

Know When to Walk Away, Know When to Run...

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 15:21:46 PM MST

So there's that.

On one hand, this is the first good bit of strategy (okay, really the only strategic move) that we've seen from Romanoff as a U.S. Senate candidate. Romanoff got a lot of free media attention by holding a press conference to announce basically nothing, while at the same time trying to beef up the impression that he is still a sought-after politician due to all of the people who encouraged him to run for Governor. Romanoff also needed to publicly affirm that he was staying in the race for Senate because of so much speculation to the contrary. In that regard, today's press conference was a good move.

On the other hand, it's hard to really understand this decision in general. Romanoff is a talented policy wonk who is widely liked and respected by both Democrats and Republicans, but his campaign for Senate has been downright awful...and it's destroying his political future in the process. Romanoff has tried meekly to distinguish himself from incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet on the basis of not accepting PAC money or special interest contributions, but policy-wise and issues-wise, there's really not much difference between the two. The lack of a strong, clear message for why Romanoff is running for Senate has been startling, and his campaign in general has been a mess. Witness this weird item today from Westword:  

Thursday Open Thread on Gov. Race: It Looks Like Hickenlooper

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 08:26:07 AM MST

If Hickenlooper does not run, the next name to watch is Rep. Ed Perlmutter. We wrote earlier that is was highly unlikely that Salazar, Hickenlooper and Perlmutter all pass on running for Governor, but if that does happen for some reason, the next names on the list are Treasurer Cary Kennedy (the only potential candidate who could actually transfer some of her current warchest to a race for Governor), Andrew Romanoff and Rep. Betsy Markey.

UPDATE #4: Denver Post reports Salazar will endorse John Hickenlooper for Governor.

"I know John and Helen will seriously consider this historic opportunity that will define the future of State of Colorado and her people. This is a personal decision they must make and I will fully respect that decision," Salazar said.

"As for me, I have a job to do as Secretary of the Interior to implement President Obama's vision for a clean energy economy and to better protect America's great outdoors."

UPDATE #3: Multiple sources now confirming, Ken Salazar will NOT run. In that case, we'd put the odds that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper will run at 95%. Developing.

UPDATE #2: Ken Salazar out? Just relaying this from The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder until we get additional word, which we are seeking now:

This just in.... Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has decided NOT to run for governor in Colorado. Incumbent Democrat Bill Ritter is retiring. The likely candidate for the Dems, then, is Denver mayor John Hickenlooper.

UPDATE #1:: It seems that The Denver Post isn't buying the Republican spin that Ritter is retiring because he didn't think he could win:

...we don't believe that Ritter dropped out of the race because he was down in recent polls and feared losing the gubernatorial election to Republican Scott McInnis. [Pols emphasis] The margin was only single digits, and voters haven't unseated an incumbent governor since 1962...

...It may not have been noticeable to Coloradans, but this job has worn on the governor. We couldn't help but notice the lightness in Ritter's demeanor at his press conference, joking at times with journalists. It seemed as if the weight of the world had been lifted from his shoulders.

He had the appearance of a man who was very comfortable with his very difficult decision, and we're happy for him. The moment he finished his speech in the Capitol foyer, he turned and hugged his teenage son. Sometimes stepping away from a job to spend time with one's family means just that.

There are 244 comments and counting on Tuesday's post, 300 and counting on Wednesday's post and quickly growing comments on this post.

Colorado Pols also broke a record yesterday with our highest number of Page Views in one day, with 60,629 (but not a record for Unique Visitors in one day, curiously enough).

So we thought you might want another open thread on the topic.

Questions, Answers (And Theories) From Ritter Announcement

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 20:13:14 PM MST

Here's what we know, what we've heard, and all of the questions both answered and unanswered surrounding Gov. Bill Ritter's announcement today that he will not run for re-election in 2010.

A Blueprint That Can't Be Followed

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:30:23 PM MST

...from the start of the race, McDonnell had the message exactly right: jobs, jobs and more jobs. Everywhere he went, McDonnell talked about not only his commitment to create more jobs in the state but his plan on how to make it happen. His slogan -- "Bob's for jobs" -- was a little cheesy but it undoubtedly stuck in the minds of voters whose number one priority was the health of the economy and the need to bring more jobs to the Commonwealth...

...McDonnell, learning from the mistakes of past GOP nominees Mark Earley (2001) and Jerry Kilgore (2005), almost never talked about his social conservative beliefs -- understanding, rightly, that it would alienate a critical segment of votes in northern Virginia and that even among his base of support there was as much interest in solving the economic crisis. [Pols emphasis]...

...In winning so overwhelmingly -- 59 percent to 41 percent -- McDonnell helped revive the Republican party nationally but also provided aspiring GOP candidates with a campaign plan for how to win (and win big) in a swing state.

Virginia has some political similarities to Colorado in that both have relatively moderate electorates that had recently trended toward Democrats in races for U.S. Senate and Governor. McDonnell understood from the beginning that he needed to stick to an economy/jobs theme and avoid divisive social issues, particularly since he had a weird history of strange proclamations in his past.

Here in Colorado, McInnis may understand that he should avoid social issues, but he also might not have a choice given that the State GOP has clearly decided that Tea Party activists are going to be vitally important in 2010. In order to placate the Teabaggers, McInnis must pander to their interests, including taking public positions on things aside from divisive social issues. As we've pointed out before, opposing things like FASTER and the destructive "Dr. Evil ballot initiatives" may make the Tea Party people happy, but it doesn't endear him to traditional GOP supporters like private construction contractors who depend on government projects to stay afloat.

McDonnell may have provided a great blueprint for McInnis to follow in his own gubernatorial campaign, but that doesn't mean he can follow the instructions. It could be a mighty frustrating 11 months for McInnis of doing exactly what he knows he shouldn't do.

Media Not Buying McInnis, GOP Platform Duck and Dodge

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:31:18 AM MST

We aren't the only ones asking just how GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis plans to fix Colorado's budget crisis with mystical new cuts and no plan for bringing in new revenue. Even conservative Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll is having a hard time with McInnis' vague answers:

If McInnis wants to establish a new level of seriousness in political campaigns, however, he's got to do more than rail against the current administration's tax hikes and regulatory excesses, and disdain for voter-approved amendments. He ought to explain how he'd balance the budget and make needed investments, too. After all, even the most pro-jobs governor can't wave a wand and repeal the business cycle.

If he intends to roll back auto-registration fees, for example, how would he repair Colorado's decrepit bridges, or get a handle on the backlog of road maintenance? How would he invest in infrastructure without going to voters with fees, taxes or tolls? [Pols emphasis]

"I can't drive the machine until I get the keys to the machine . . . ," McInnis told me Tuesday. "We won't even know what we're facing until after the legislative session. . . . What we can talk about are basic premises."

I received essentially the same dodge when I asked him about support for higher education, which could plummet when federal stimulus funds expire.

Not only is McInnis determined to spare taxpayers when balancing the budget and shoring up highway or higher-ed spending, he even opposes an extension of Referendum C's timeout on TABOR refunds - a position that could come back to haunt him if the economy heats up.

McInnis talks as if he will identify major waste or inefficiencies once he dives into the budget and reviews property leases, credit card use, management of state lands and buildings, and so forth. This is unlikely, to say the least. When pressed, he volunteers that more dramatic reform is inevitable. "We are going to have to do with less," he says. "We are going to have to make very hard decisions between what we want and what we need. . . . We are going to have to downsize."

Yes, we are - absent new sources of revenue or a visit from a very wealthy leprechaun. And at some point next summer or fall, McInnis should be expected to tell us how. [Pols emphasis]

We've seen a noticeable change from the media in recent months in regards to how they cover politicians and their talking points about the budget. Reporters and columnists are no longer letting them get away with broad generalities about how "we need to just cut more" without saying exactly what we could cut that hasn't already been decimated. Politicians are no longer getting away with boldly claiming "no new taxes" when the stark reality is that Colorado needs some kind of new revenue, and soon.

So kudos to those reporters and other media folks who are keeping a closer eye on the reality of our state's troubled budget and ignoring empty statements. Telling the public that we can just cut our way out of the problem and won't need new revenue isn't just disingenuous -- it's downright dangerous. Whoever ends up as Governor in 2011 is going to have a lot of work to do, and they are going to need the support of the general public to turn the budget around.

UPDATE: More editorial boards weigh in after the jump.

Pols Poll 2: Governor (Democrats)

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 11:00:00 AM MDT

Four More Furlough Days for State Employees

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 12:42:20 PM MDT

With the global economic downturn continuing to impact state government, Gov. Bill Ritter announced today that state employees will be taking four additional unpaid furlough days in the current fiscal year, bringing the total number to eight.

About 15,500 employees already have taken two furlough days, Sept. 8 and Oct. 9, with two more days scheduled for Nov. 27 and Dec. 31. The new days, all Fridays, will be Jan. 15, Feb. 12, April 2 and May 28. Many government offices will be closed those days.

The eight closure days will save about $27.2 million in FY09-10, which started July 1 and ends June 30...

...Over the past year, the global recession has forced Gov. Ritter and lawmakers to close budget shortfalls of about $1.8 billion.

Gov. Ritter will present the legislature's Joint Budget Committee with a plan to close an additional $270 million shortfall at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday.

Remember, folks, that this isn't just about saving money by not paying salaries for four days. This means that most government offices will not be open to the public, and that affects a lot of people in Colorado one way or the other.

Rothenberg Political Report Not There Yet

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:34:03 AM MDT

Rothenberg lists Sen. Michael Bennet as having a "Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party," while Gov. Bill Ritter is listed as a "Toss-Up." We think they've got both races listed incorrectly, because we'd put both the Senate and Governor's race in the "Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party" position.

This is a classic example of Washington D.C. outsiders looking at races across the country based on limited information. For example, Republican Josh Penry has been getting good national press as the "new, fresh face" in Colorado Republican politics, but that ignores the facts: Scott McInnis beats him easily in head-to-head polling, and Penry has yet to show that he can be a strong fund raiser. Ritter is by no means safe for re-election, but given that there is a tough GOP primary with two flawed candidates, this is still his race to lose.

On the Senate side, Bennet has a tough primary with House Speaker Andrew Romanoff and finally has a strong potential GOP challenger in Jane Norton. Again, this is Bennet's race to lose, but we certainly wouldn't say he has a "clear advantage" at winning re-election.

What say you?

Pols Poll: Governor (Democrats)

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 13:04:10 PM MDT

As always, please vote based on what you think will happen, not on who you would vote for or which candidate you support personally. Think of it this way: If you had to bet the deed to your house, who would you pick?

Tomorrow we'll poll on the big races on the Republican side.

Ritter Hopes Primary Won't Split Democrats; Also Wants a Unicorn

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:57:00 AM MDT

Gov. Bill Ritter says he would have been better off politically if he had picked former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Democrat Ken Salazar.

But the governor, speaking Monday on the Mike Rosen Show on 850 KOA, said he is sticking by his appointment of Michael Bennet to the seat...

..."What I am hopeful of is that it (the primary) does not split the party or split it in way that causes damage in the November election," Ritter said. "I obviously would have counseled Andrew against this, but this is something he decided to do, and I'm going to be with Michael Bennet."

Ritter, who has repeatedly cited Bennet's personal qualities as assets for the Senate post, said his choice wasn't the safe, easy one.

"I could have appointed Andrew, and it would have been better for me politically to have done that because he had sort of a longer history in Colorado politics," he said.

Make no mistake: Romanoff's challenge of Bennet is also a clear challenge of Ritter as well. Even if Ritter wins re-election, a Bennet loss will significantly weaken Ritter's position among Democrats. In fact, it's fair to say that a Romanoff win would make him the acknowledged leader of the Democrats in Colorado, even with a two-term Ritter in the Governor's mansion.

So, yes, picking Romanoff (or John Hickenlooper, or Ed Perlmutter) would have been safer politically for Ritter. Smarter, too.

And you thought that whole discussion was over in January.

Good and Bad Attacks from McInnis

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:46:46 AM MDT

At a fundraiser in Greenwood Village on Tuesday night, McInnis ripped the governor, saying Ritter was more interested in his re-election campaign than handling delays at the Department of Labor and Employment, which has been besieged with unemployment claims.

"Get these unemployment checks out of the door. It means something to somebody," McInnis said.

"You know at the department of labor, these people all get their paychecks on the 30th of the month," McInnis said. "They don't have to worry if they're getting their paycheck or not."

Why McInnis would attack state employees is beyond us, especially since they are all being forced to take furlough days to help with the budget crisis. There are more than 30,000 state employees, and we'd assume most of them vote.

But the messaging wasn't all bad for McInnis.

McInnis also took a swipe at his most formidable GOP opponent, state Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, of Grand Junction, although he never mentioned Penry by name.

"Somebody told me the other day, 'I kind of like a fresh face,' " McInnis said.

"I said, 'Good, keep that in mind the next time you're in an accident and they rush you to the emergency room. Say to them, 'You know, I want the new doctor, the one that just graduated from medical school.'

We've said before that we think Josh Penry's age is an issue that will become more and more of a problem for him as the campaign progresses, and McInnis' comparison to a new doctor is a great line. Voters across the country have been willing to elect younger candidates to Congress and U.S. Senate, but will they really pull the lever for a young candidate to lead the entire state?  

Ritter Announces Four Furlough Days for State Employees

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 15:03:38 PM MDT

Gov. Bill Ritter today announced the four dates that state employees will be taking unpaid furloughs this year. The Governor also said he will be returning the equivalent of four days of his own pay to the state treasury...

...Public safety and other essential state workers will be exempted from the furloughs. The furloughs will be part of a comprehensive budget-cutting plan to close a nearly $400 million shortfall in FY09-10. The governor and legislature already have erased a $1.4 billion gap in fiscal years 08-09 and 09-10.

Full press release follows.

Ritter Approval Rating Bad, But Could Be Worse?

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 13:28:33 PM MDT

According to the poll, Gov. Bill Ritter's approval rating is at 44%, which is obviously not very good. The numbers are particularly scary for the Guv's supporters considering that Ritter is a sitting governor 18 months from re-election in a state that just voted strongly for a Democrat for President. Ritter should be safely above 50% at this point in his term.

The upside, if there is any upside, is that Ritter isn't polling any worse than 44%. We've actually heard polls a month or two ago had him below 40%, which could still be the case given the margin of error of these things. But with all of the negative press Ritter has received in the last several months, combined with some bafflingly-bad political decisions, perhaps 44% is about the best he could hope for...which tells you all you need to know about the race for governor at this point.

Republican, In Colo. Springs, Wants to (GASP!) Raise Taxes

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 10:31:41 AM MDT

A Republican county commissioner furious over increased auto-registration fees said he's willing to campaign alongside the Democratic governor for a 10-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax hike instead.

Commissioner Jim Bensberg of El Paso County got out his calculator after he discovered the registration for his 1978 El Camino increased 116 percent because of a state law that went into effect July 1. He calculated he would pay less with a gas-tax increase, and it would be more fair, too, because tourists would pay to improve Colorado's roads.

Politicians in both parties have questioned whether voters would approve a gas-tax hike, but Bensberg said it's time to find out.

"Colorado taxpayers should be given an opportunity to vote on a proposed gas-tax increase instead of bearing a compulsory across-the-board fee increase," he said.

Bensberg, who is term-limited next year, added that a "modest" increase to the existing 22-cents-a-gallon tax would provide an incentive for Coloradans to use more fuel-efficient vehicles. But a 10-cents-a-gallon hike would make Colorado's gas tax the highest in the Rocky Mountain region. Utah's gas tax is 24.5 cents, New Mexico's is 18.8 cents and Wyoming's is 14 cents, according to industry data.

Gov. Bill Ritter pointed out this week that the legislature used to increase the gas tax and last did so in 1991. The following year, voters approved the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, requiring a vote of the people for any tax increase.

Although transportation needs have grown, Ritter said no governor since then has asked voters to increase the tax, in part because of the expense of pushing a ballot measure that many predict would go down.

Bensberg said he would be "pleased to join the governor" in pushing for the gas-tax increase - including one less than 10 cents a gallon - to replace the registration increase.

Ritter declined Bensberg's offer.

We're sorry to see that Ritter declined Bensber's offer, because - as we've said here for a long time - Colorado desperately needs more revenue after mindless years of cutting taxes and spending to the point where services are flat-out dying off. Like in El Paso County, for example, where selling parks and foregoing health inspections are just the tip of the melting iceberg.

Nobody likes raising taxes, and nobody likes paying them, but we're kind of running out of options here. Somebody needs to start showing some leadership in standing up to the voters to explain why we need a tax increase.

I'm Still the Chief of Staff, I'm Still the Chief of Staff, I'm Still...

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 11:44:30 AM MDT

As The Denver Post reports (we've helpfully highlighted the message in bold):

Gov. Bill Ritter's chief of staff says he will not be superseded by a new "chief operating officer" - but rather co-manage state government with him.

Jim Carpenter, who has served as chief of staff since the Democratic governor was elected, said he and Don Elliman, Ritter's economic development director, will be "partners" in administering the state.

"Don and I are the senior management team," Carpenter said. "I'm the chief of staff. Don and I both report to Bill Ritter. I'm still the chief of staff, and Don is a partner with me in that."

Elliman's comments mirrored Carpenter's.

"I work with Jim, and I report to the governor," Elliman said. "He (Carpenter) is still chief of staff."

Are we all clear on that? Pretty good message consistency, we'd say. But then it all breaks down later in the story...

Today is Random Declaration Day

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 14:19:47 PM MDT

Rep. Apuan said, "As the first Filipino-American elected to the Colorado Statehouse, I am deeply honored to extend my heartfelt felicitations and best wishes to the general membership of the Filipino-American Community of Colorado and to the wider Colorado community. The Filipino community's noble efforts to showcase the very best of Philippine arts, entertainment and culture -- along with a taste of our world-renown hospitality and cuisine - are a magnificent testament to the enduring Filipino spirit of bayanihan or community cooperation..."

It would have been nice to have gotten some context for the Governor's proclamation in the original release so people weren't left scratching their heads, but helping Rep. Apuan, who faces a tough fight for re-election to his Ft. Carson-area seat and can certainly use all the press time he can get, is something that Democrats shouldn't find any fault with. Original post after the jump.

Colorado Leader in Green Jobs

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 15:46:50 PM MDT

According to a press release from the Governor's office:

Ritter Signs SB 228, Republicans Attack from...Grand Junction?

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 11:56:12 AM MDT

Senate Bill 228, sponsored by Republican Rep. Don Marostica and Democrats Sen. John Morse and Rep. Lois Court, establishes consistent and reliable funding for transportation projects, while also removing an arbitrary allocation formula that prevents the recovery of vital state services when the economy recovers...

..."This is a fiscally responsible approach to creating a rainy day fund and ensuring that we are adequately funding transportation and capital construction," Rep. Marostica said. "More importantly, this accomplishes those goals without raising taxes."

Republican Rep. Don Marostica's deservedly praised sponsorship on this issue has made it tough for the right-wing of the GOP to really gain traction against the legislation, so how did they fight back?

Well, yesterday afternoon Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry and House Minority Leader Mike May held a press conference in Grand Junction.

Seriously.

The GOP leadership had to take its traction-less attack on a needed piece of legislation sponsored by a Republican member of the Joint Budget Committee to the tiny Grand Junction market in order to get somebody to pay attention to their cries.

We've been saying for months that Colorado Republicans would have been better off trying to find compromise on budget solutions rather than just saying no to everything. But instead they've held firm to their plan of doing nothing and complaining often, and now they're relegated to holding meaningless press conferences in Grand Junction because every other market won't pay attention any more.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican legislative leadership!

Ritter Vetoes (Another) Labor Union Bill

by: Colorado Pols

Tue May 19, 2009 at 17:39:38 PM MDT

I am filing with the Secretary of State House Bill 09-1170, "Concerning unemployment insurance benefits for locked-out employees."  I vetoed this bill as of 4:55 p.m. today, and this letter sets forth my reasons for doing so.

There are currently ongoing contract negotiations between the United Food and Commercial Workers No. 7 and several grocery stores, including King Soopers, Safeway, Albertsons, and City Market.  The parties to these negotiations have been working hard for several months to try to reach an agreement.  I believe it is ill-advised and counterproductive to enact legislation that materially impacts the relative bargaining position of parties in the midst of ongoing negotiations.  In these troubled economic times, I am deeply concerned about the effect a strike or lockout of employees would have on grocery store workers and consumers across the state, and I am concerned that signing this bill into law will make a negotiated resolution of the grocery store contract more difficult, not less.  

Therefore, under these circumstances, the state should not interject itself into these contract negotiations by enacting House Bill 09-1170 into law.

Unless there is some sort of negotiation taking place with the grocery chains and workers that included this veto as part of the deal, Ritter isn't doing himself any favors by once again vetoing a bill promoted by a labor union and passed by the legislature.

"I am deeply concerned about the effect a strike or lockout of employees would have on grocery store workers and consumers across the state, and I am concerned that signing this bill into law will make a negotiated resolution of the grocery store contract more difficult, not less," he writes. Well, Governor, you just did take a position on the contract talks - this veto basically strengthens the grocery chain's bargaining position.

This is a controversial bill, to be sure, but many legislators put their own asses on the line when they voted for it. Those legislators are now going to be subject to attack pieces in 2010 criticizing their support for a bill that their own Party's governor vetoed.

If Ritter was going to veto this bill, he should have gotten word to Democratic leadership before they passed it. These are the kind of vetoes that have angered many Democrats in the legislature, and for good reason; this has happened several times now, and not just with bills that were labor-backed.

And all of this is for what? To placate a business community that doesn't support him anyway?

Full text of veto explanation follows.