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%
March 04, 2010 07:03 PM UTC
23 Comments
Loading ...
I’m wondering whether the proposed ballot initiative implicates corporate personhood.
I believe that the text includes the language “the term ‘person’ shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.'”
Does that mean that the term person applies only to human beings?
(Given that I’m a law professor, you might think I could answer my own question.)
If the 14th Amendment had included the adjective “natural” before persons, then corporations would not be persons today.
What the Republicans argue is that Roe v. Wade was decided
wrongly because abortion is a medical procedure which rightly belongs to the jurisdiction of the individual states. So, they urge the Supreme Court to revisit Roe and overturn it on this basis, not that the embryo et.al. is a person.
THEN, when the issue is returned to the states, each state would vote on whether abortion is legal or not. The idea behind putting so-called ‘personhood” into the state constitution is that if Roe were overturned, and this amendment were in the state constitution, then abortion would automatically become illegal. This is a strategy, not a legal brief. It is designed to keep the right-to-life bunch in line w/o an elected official of the Republican persuation EVER having to vote up or down on abortion.
You guys have to get up early and stay late in order to be ahead of the Republicans.
If the dems are not “energized” and their turnout is low, and this amendment is on the ballot AND the teaparty folks and republics are hell bent to victory, the amendment could help the republican turnout. DITTO if the bishops tell catholics they cannot vote for anyone who will not endorse the amendment.
It is worth a shot.
With that concept. How can corporations have “personhood” when they theoretically can live forever and be more than 50% owned which wouldn’t make them naturalized citizens?
We’re well on our way to becoming a feudalistic society again, except this time will be under the rule of the Lords of AIG and Walmart.
On a side note I was glad to see the first degree murder of fetus fail miserably in committee 🙂
Then bankruptcy would be illegal because that would end the life of the corporation.
Bankruptcy would allow the person (company) to survive while still stiffing its creditors.
That’s what it’s for.
I’m not sure it helps or hurts anybody. The issue this fall will be jobs. Period. If the economy is still in the crapper, Dems lose. It won’t matter what else is on the ballot.
Jobs may be the issue that helps people make their decisions in November, but ballot measures like this increase turnout to get people there in the first place. There’s been a lot of talk that Democrats might stay home in 2010, but they’re not going to refuse to vote if something like this is on the ballot.
But if turnout is enhanced because of a personhood amendment, I don’t see that being in a good way. I think it’s a wash at best.
did Douglas Bruce and/or his minions try to get some form of TABOR on the ballot before it passed? I take issue that it helps anyone much less a political party.
Amendment 48 (last cycle’s incarnation of this piece of garbage) was the third most voted-on line on the 2008 ballot in colorado right behind US Senate, which was right behind President. Dem turnout was already dramatically up because of Obama, and A48 absolutely increased turnout (of dems and pro-choice republicans) Here was the breakdown:
Presidential 2,401,462
United States Senator 2,331,712
A48 2,310,016
The dropoff between US President and A48 was only -3.81%. The next three amendments broke down like this:
A47 2,285,557 -4.83%
A51 2,267,276 -5.59%
A50 2,266,820 -5.61%
further, 0.6 Million (27%)supported A48 versus a whopping 1.7 Million (73%)opposing the measure. Any R that aligned themselves with the measure in non-batshit-crazy-districts lost the election.
Is that there were eight TABOR-type amendments on the ballot, beginning in 1966, that failed before the final, ninth, version narrowly passed in 1992. Bruce played a role in drafting and promoting the last three.
I moved here in late ’87 and didn’t realize it went that far back. One issue advocates are as relentless today as they were then, maybe more so.
The Sentinel’s description of the calculation did not make sense to me so I got a copy of the SoS’s press release and they had misquoted it.
Here are the numbers:
79,648 signatures submitted
76,047 needed for the ballot.
The ramdom sample checks the larger number of 4,000 or 5% of the signatues submitted. 5% of 79648 is 3802, so 4000 had to be checked.
Of those:
3031 were accepted
969 were rejected
this means they could project approx. 60,357 would have been accepted. If this projected number had fallen between 68,442 and 83,652, the SoS would have had to check every signature (ie-too close to call by ramdom sample). If it was above 83,652, the measure would go on the ballot.
So it was well short of what was needed (8000 shy of just getting into the “check every signature range”. I would estimate the proponents need to turn at least 15,000 moe signatures to even hope to make it, and that would still be close.
for digging into that.
We have to educate America. That’s what this says to me.
Pretty sure America (or at the very least, Colorado) has already been educated. See Jersey Transplant’s post above.
But that escapes you, eh?
Really??? I have yet to meet anyone with that opinion of President Obama. well cept for the chronically paranoid, intentionally ignorant and the delusional schizophrenic.
Or is that the GOP base these days?
But they’re armed to the teeth, so I wouldn’t worry about them.
the reality of Obama terrifies the GOP.
I love when you post things like this, Gop-wad. It’s like a Whopper-munching couch potato saying “Americans need better diets and more exercise,” as the mayonaise dribbles down the ripples in his chin! Oh, if it weren’t so tragic and sad, it would be hillarious….