U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Janak Joshi
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) David Seligman
50%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Milat Kiros
90%
10%
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*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Jessica Killin
70%
30%
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) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 05, 2010 12:34 AM UTC
39 Comments
(At least I’m too honest to claim I have a humble opinion.)
Seriously, I’m worried about Ritter in the sense that he has at least good priorities for the state. McInnis’ threat to dismantle Faster is bad news for our transportation system and his unwillingness to even consider helping higher education is even more ominous. Re-electing Ritter is important for my children and grandchildren’s future.
This is the big year for that and if anything ought to motivate Dems to get off their asses and GOTV, it’s redistricting, lest we forget how it went the last time around when Republicans were in the driver’s seat.
redistricting didn’t turn out all that bad for Dems? I guess I forget??
The one we live with now was drafted by the courts after a Democratic Senate and Republican House deadlocked in 2002. When the Rs. regained the Senate in 2002. they tried the “midnight gerrymander” , so-named by The Denver Post’s Bob Ewegen because they ran it in the last three days of the session (usually almost to midnight) to shut out any public input. It was designed to produce about 5 safe Republican seats. But it violated a 1934 Colorado Supreme Court decision following a Democratic attempt to gerrymander after their 1932 sweep. Essentially, the constitution doesn’t mention political parties and screwing them is not per se wrong. But it must be done in the window between the census and the first Congressional election to follow. After that, the 1934 ruling held, voters are entitled to stability in knowing who their reps are and where their district’s lie.
John Andrews, Senate president at the time, was enraged and promptly tried to recall four Democrats from the Court under the guise of “term limits.” The voters saw through that effort. Now, Andrews is trying to purge four Democrats again under the rubric “Clear the Bench.”
Andrews probably deserves the title second worst politician of the decade in Colorado. Obviously, Douglas “kick the press and starve the government” Bruce is the very worst.
was not actually drawn by the court. It was a plan submitted by the plaintiffs in the redistricting suit and was adopted by the court.
There were numerous maps submitted by various participants in the suit. As testimony went on, it was clear that all the original maps were going to be rejected. The plaintiffs redrew a map to reflect what appeared to be the course the judge was taking.
It kept Denver and the western slope intact as primary communities of interest and of course met the other constitutional requirements as reflected in prior court rulings.
It is interesting to remember that the 1991 redistricting map was also ‘drawn’ by the court. At that time, it was a Republican controlled General Assembly and a Democratic governor that led to the impasse that threw the redistricting to the court.
Ironically, that map created the 3rd CD, that Scott McInnis was so successful in. Until McInnis’ election, the seat had been held by a Democrat since 1964.
redistricting didn’t turn out too bad for the Dems last time when the Reps were in control. You have the upper hand in determining what the lines will look like so stop with the fear mongering already.
Because of what Voyageur describes well above. Whichever party is in power after 2010 won’t likely make that mistake again and leave it to the courts to decide.
The Reps WERE NOT in control!!!
The whole reason it did not turn out so bad was simply because the Dems had control of the State Senate, and had the veto power over any map.
So, nobody was in control. Nobody has the upper hand when one party has a veto power. If the Dems control the House, Senate and Gov, then you can say that they have the “upper hand.” But only then — and we don’t know what that will look like until this November.
The Rs were in total control in 2003, which is when they ran the mid-night Gerrymander. Sadly for them, the clock had already run out. And while they screamed bloody murder about “judicial activism” the state supreme Court ruling on that point was issued in 1934 and repeated efforts by Andrews to challenge the ruling…at taxpayer expense, of course…were repeatedly rejected by the federal courts.
That’s because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that was, if memory serves, 9-0 and said that if the local authorities…legislature and/or courts…have addressed such an issue, federal courts have no jurisdiction. Of course, that ruling was written by the notorious liberal activist judge Antonin Scalia!
The redistricting was a fucking nightmare, ended up in court and dragged on forever. That’s the point here. There’s no fear mongering involved. Redistricting is huge and it’s a major factor in the election next year and you’d better believe Dick Wadhams is thinking the same thing.
The court drew the lines in 1981 when Gov. Lamm (D) and the Republican controlled legislature could not agree on a plan. Congressional redistricting in 1981 was a big fight because Colorado added a new congressional district, the 6th CD.
In 1991, a redistricting case was filed in federal district court but the Republicans and Democrats finally agreed to a plan and the Republican legislature adopted the bill and Gov. Romer (D) signed it into law. A compromise was possible because we weren’t adding a new district and the only issue was realigning the existing districts to comply with the one person – one vote principle.
2001 was another fight to the finish because we were awarded a new district, the 7th CD.
2011 should not be that hard, although with the present partisanship it is hard to see how it won’t be a difficult issue, but Colorado will remain a seven district state so only minor adjustments need to be made.
“Until McInnis’ election, the seat had been held by a Democrat since 1964.”
Nope. Ben Campbell took it from a Republican in 1986.
A one-term wonder in the mid 80s. But before that it was Kogo and Frank Evans, back when the district was even more heavily dominated by reliably Democratic Pueblo.
He had a big hat and tried his best to hide his intelligence under it!
Bob Ewegen?
It’s not like he was all that great, but whatinhell is he doing now?
Is that Bob Ewegen is retired and working part time as a paralegal with his attorney daughter, Misty, specializing in writing, research and editing on environmental lawsuits, a number of which now carry the delightful Ewegen v. Salazar label. He blogs occasionally on that office’s blog, the Blackacre Journal.
Bob is also taking paralegal classes at Community College of Denver and expects to be certified as a paralegal in May, when he will turn 65.
He’s also on the board of directors of the Colorado Judicial Institute and “Journalist in Residence” at that organization.
He’s an advisor to Cary Kennedy and expects to work on her campaign this year.
Finally, now that his one-year noncompete clause with the Denver Post has expired, he sometimes shows up on other blogs, including this one, where he has the strange habit of referring to himself in the third person 😉
🙂
And I think the word MOTR was looking for is “freak.”
MOTR never uses words that start with “F.”
It’s just funnier
I’ve known Voyageur a long time here and we’re just goofing around.
I don’t see the Dem Gov’s Assoc being able to buy Ritters way out of this loss.
But it will require his campaign execute very very well.
I think the gov’s election, barring any unforeseen major missteps by either campaign, will be quite close, regardless of who wins. Neither candidate is very strong, and voters will be in a foul mood throughout the year because the economy isn’t going to get a whole lot better.
Everything will combine to make this gov’s race very interesting and entertaining to watch.
I think it will definitely be interesting & entertaining. But I don’t think the final vote will be close.
I believe that Maes will demonstrate how radical the Republicans truly have become. The job market is turning around.
When the Rs controlled all the process, in 2003, when they had recaptured the Senate, pthey ran a roto-rooter gerrymander at the behest of Karl Rove itself. That was struck down by the Court because it was outside the lawful time frame.
That meant districts reverted to the fairly balanced plan adopted by the court in 2002 after the legislature deadlocked between a Republican House and Democratic Senate.
The point is that if either party controls all three players …House,Senate, Gov., they have an opportunity to legally gerrymander in 2011. Now, if you want to be afraid, very afraid, think what they Ds might do if they keep their current dominance. They might carve out a map giving them 5-2 control!
Ohh, this just in. They already have a 5-2 control. Seriously, I’m sure they would try to shore up Markey and perhaps even the 3rd, where it will revert back to swing status when John Salazar steps down.
But you can be sure 5 and 6 will be even more heavily Republican, if possible, because the whole idea of a gerrymander is to give the victimized party overwhelming, and wasteful, majorities in a few districts while remaining smaller, but workable, majorities for the favored party in most of the districts. 5-2 is as good as it gets for the Ds. I’d like to hear other Polsters ideas of how the Ds can enhance their prospects of holding their current five, only two of which, 1 and 2, are actually off the charts in terms of party registration.
As to enhancing CD4, I’d like to see a bit more of Boulder County, preferably the liberal portion, redistricted into CD4. Barring that, I don’t see much opportunity for enhancement. Our district is what it is, unless we give away the eastern plain counties to Kansas and Oklahoma.
they work on meaningful legislation that improves the quality of life for all living things, animal and vegetable?
When you are in the majority do something that people remember as decent and constructive.
Stay away from the culture wars.
Avoid lying about the difficulty of the problems or the sacrifices required to achieve workable solutions.
Your welcome. Glad to clear this one up for you.
but wouldn’t be fun if they focused on doing their job instead holding on to it. What a concept.
In 1981, Congressman Phil Burton (D-California) handled the redistricting for the Democrats in that state. He made as many districts into Democrat leaning districts as he could but he very shrewdly made sure all but two of the incumbent Republcians could win reelection in their districts. Thus, the incumbent Republicans, except for two of them, supported his plan and weren’t in the least bit interested in filing a court action to overturn his plan.
And then we Dems can beat the snot out of the Repubs on the issues – and get a larger majority. Of course, that requires that we make a more compelling case 🙂
This from the guy who praises Bush and the Republican Congress for steamrolling a legislative agenda, and bashes Obama and the Democrats for failing to accomplish everything under the sun because they’re afraid to use power ruthlessly?
If Democrats keep the governorship and the legislature, it would be political malpractice to do what you suggest. When it’s redistricting time, it’s the job of a political majority to protect vulnerable incumbents while maintaining the districts of other incumbents.
You would have seen even larger gains in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress for us Dems.
We would have seen triangulating and quadrilating winners who had to cater to some hard core single issue voters, or extreme agendas to get a plurality.