Ex-Colorado Senator Cries Vote Fraud

WEDNESDAY UPDATE: 9NEWS’ Kyle Clark gave this the proper treatment last night:

—–

UPDATE: Apparently she means it:

Now would seem to be the time.

—–

Former GOP Colorado Sen. Laura “Waters” Woods of Arvada smells a rat!

If we’re understanding the theory here correctly, because Colorado voters swept Democrats into office at every level while simultaneously voting down the Amendment 73 and Proposition 110 tax increases on the ballot, it “seems like” voter fraud took place in Colorado. This dreadfully oversimplified illogic ignores Colorado’s long history of sending complicated or even contradictory messages at the polls.

Not to mention that Colorado has a Republican Secretary of State who would likely have objected.

But more fundamentally, you just don’t jump to the wild conclusion of “voter fraud” based on something this thin unless you’re completely unhinged to begin with–and during Sen. Woods’ time in the legislature, from baseless warnings of “vaccination roundups” to raging on Planned Parenthood in the wake of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, she helped anchor the unhinged wing of the GOP Senate caucus. With that in mind, it’s completely in character.

Weeks? Months? Whichever it is, this could be the one way to make everybody happy.

0 Shares

58 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. unnamed says:

    Laura "Waters" Woods, Wyoming beckons for thee.  Oh, and take your friend Timmeh Neville with you.

    Also, is your updated tweet a promise?

  2. davebarnesdavebarnes says:

    Well, hopefully in 2021, she will be moved to a FEMA reëducation camp.

  3. Diogenesdemar says:

    What a mo . . . 

    . . . deratus ??!!

    LWW will probably never realize or admit just how much she, and her silly band of numbskull ilksters, contributed to the liberal “takeover” this cycle?

    Thanks Laura! And, thanks for leaving now, too!!

  4. notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

    I hope the door does hit her in the butt on her way out.

  5. Meiner49erMeiner49er says:

    Perhaps all the out of work organizers would be willing to load a few moving vans? Maybe we could start "Two Dems and a Truck" to help them out (of the state)?

  6. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    Good riddance to bad waters  rubbish.

  7. JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

    There were lots of reasons to vote against various state tax increases. Why, even some on this very board were advocating voting in favor of only a couple of the initiatives ("X is better than Sex" was a catchy slogan) and killing the rest.

    I understand there is some sentiment for letting a new and improved legislature take a shot at actually legislating some sort of COMPREHENSIVE solution to our revenue situation, then letting voters express themselves on the better solution.

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      Plus,74 and 109 were noxious far right plans.  With $50 million or so being spent to promote no votes, there does tend to be a general vote no feeling.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      You were on a bit of a roll there (sort of), right up until that “take a shot at actually legislating some sort of COMPREHENSIVE solution to our revenue situation”.  At which point, it seems that you completely forgot that we are still living in Taborado, including that nifty single-subject proviso, and that it would be all but Constitutionally impossible to ever have any COMPREHENSIVE revenue solution in this state?

      • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

        The best way to clean this all up would be a constitutional convention.

        • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

          As tempting as that is (I'd personally like to be able to recall, say, Cory Gardner, or to make dark money in politics illegal), the folks who want to call a constitutional convention are generally not those you'd want to stand with politically.

          Taking away birthright citizenship , states being able to defy any Federal law they don't like, laws promoting industries at the expense of human life – these are all risks with a constitutional convention.

          Convention of States, with Alec’s support, is one of three prominent conservative groups pushing for a new constitutional convention. Under article V, if two-thirds of state legislatures so choose, they can force congress to convene such a meeting. On the agenda for Convention of States: an amendment to require a balanced budget, term limits for congress, repealing the federal income tax and giving states the power to veto any federal law, supreme court decision or executive order with a three-fifths vote from the states.

        • Only a few years ago the thought of a state constitutional convention would have almost certainly ended in a nightmare of RRR utopia with unborn super-citizens, mandatory gun ownership, and a drowned perpetually dying government.

          I'm not convinced that calling such a convention would be safe yet.

          • unnamed says:

            Only a few years ago the thought of a state constitutional convention would have almost certainly ended in a nightmare of RRR dystopia with unborn super-citizens, mandatory gun ownership, and a drowned perpetually dying government.

             

            Fixed it for ya.

        • MADCO says:

          or gold-pooping unicorns distrcating everyone for a few minutes, while Tesla tunnels Fort Collins to Pueblo through a wormhole with a flame thrower that is not a flame thrower.

          FOr real- a Constitutional COnvention would ruin us..

           

      • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

        Rejecting TABOR would be a single subject.

        Rejecting Gallagher would be a single subject.

        Throw in a separate effort to repeal School Finance Act of 1994.

        Get rid of Amendment 23, and any other arbitrary formulas (I'm certain there are more I'm not thinking of) are incorporated into the Constitution.

        Develop an alternative to cap the overall state and local revenue, with protections for low income, low wealth, and low corporate revenues. Add a phase in period to allow for a transition from what we've got to what we should have.

        I'm not certain the various parts of the package could pass — but doing nothing ought to be considered intolerable.

      • 2Jung2Die2Jung2Die says:

        There's a template already drafted from Senate Concurrent Resolution 10-001. It called for creation of a Constitutional Review Commission (not a convention), limited to fiscal issues including but not limited to TA___ (I can't call it a BOR), Am-23 and Gallagher (the Big 3). Under this, voters would have to pass a temporary exception to single-subject as part of authorizing the commission, though No Doubt this could be a tough sell to some voters, and the whole thing would now need 55% approval. The commission would then be able to draft comprehensive proposals, with each one again to go before voters and in most cases probably needing 55%. Not a panacea, but amending/repealing parts or all of any one of the Big 3 without touching the others might lead to imbalanced solutions.

        • DENependent says:

          Sounds like a workable solution, though it would need a lot of work to convince that 55% majority.

          Could not a set of amendments be put on the ballot that would be dependent on the others passing? That might gain more trust of voters than an open ended commission, particularly if it is a Tabor replacement instead of a total repeal.

          Also, as I recall, our new 55% majority does not apply to repeals. Is Tabor locked in because it is not single subject and so cannot be simply repealed?

          • 2Jung2Die2Jung2Die says:

            DEN – regarding your 3rd paragraph, it's my understanding that Bruce's Brainchild is multiple subject and would need to be repealed via multiple measures. Maybe this question deserves a fresh legal analysis though. The other problem, anecdotally, is I've heard that, among the multiple subjects, the requirement to vote on tax increases is popular. This might make it tough to pass a blanket repeal, maybe even at 50%.

          • RepealAndReplace says:

            comment deleted

  8. deathpigeon says:

    Them moving out of Colorado is (probably) an empty threat on their part, just like people threatening to move to Canada over who wins the Presidency.

  9. doremi says:

    Oh Laura,

    Yes.  You CAN make Colorado better by leaving.

    The voters in Arvada saw you for the ultraconservative wingnut that you were and in 2016 revoked their 2014 election of you to the senate.   

    I'll never forget seeing the video of your leading the "Lock Her Up" cry at a Trump rally in 2016.  Guess you're continuing on your "no evidence" bandwagon…Lock her up…vote fraud.

    Geez.  Best wishes in your move.

    Delighted Doremi

  10. Ah! But libs aren't taking over until 2019, so I'm guessing we're still going to be stuck with her.

  11. Independent Voter says:

    I am surprised that 73 failed. Most voters in the state make far less than $150,000 per year. Why would working class voters not want a graduating tax scale that taxes the wealthy at a higher rate than those struggling to make ends meet? 

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Because there was no guarantee that the money to be raised by 73 would be spent wisely. 

    • It added complexity to an already absurd situation, it wasn't neatly understandable what the consequences were, it had a tax increase, it was an amendment, and it was citizen initiated legislation.

      Success in this arena is likely to be a referred measure that cleans up the state budget situation and is saleable (i.e. clear simple and sure). It will still have a tax increase and it will still be an amendment to change budget allocation, but it will remove other uncertainties.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      I’m not surprised. People do not like paying taxes in general absent a compelling reason. And many people – realistically or otherwise – believe they will some day be in that higher tax bracket.

    • MADCO says:

      cause no one understood it.
      And we all hope we too will get to income that would then be taxed (just like the estate tax) and … 🙁  because the left will talk… but the walk is tough 

  12. Genghis says:

    lol Laura "Waters"

    Happy trails, fare thee well, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, ya sociopathic piece of shit. 

  13. Arvadonian1Arvadonian1 says:

    Is there a fund we can contribute to to move these folks out?  I'd chip in!  That'd be money well spent!

    • MADCO says:

      there is – in a way
      All th einfrastructure that hasn't been maintained is the taxes they skated on, and tht the rest of us who stay to work and build the state have to make up for.

      Meanwhile – whe she and other whiney crrybaby RWNJ forget – there is no perfect place
      They're going to hate everywhere else.

      Wyoming: way higher extraction (severance) taxes
      Alaska: severance taxes fund the totally socialist Permanent Fund
      Mississippi: well, as beautiful as it is and as much as most them would overlook the negatives – it's got humiidty, HUGE underemployment, no wage base to grift off and tons of color
      Florida: uh… nuh uh
      Arkansas: maybe… seriously whatinhell is wrong with Arkansas? Load the truck and move Beverly… Arkansas.
       

  14. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Overlooked in all the hoopla about the Woods/Waters Twitter feed is the comment by far right wing provocateur Dinesh D'Souza: "It is possible that GOP voters went for Sinema. But very improbable. This demands a serious examination."

    But I read that newly re-elected Republican Governor Doug Ducey said there was no sign of voter fraud in AZ. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.