U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
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*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
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) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 07, 2010 09:30 PM UTC
19 Comments
She’s a very decent chance.
She’d have to have been registered as an unaffiliated voter since sometime last year.
didn’t the bill to change that requirement get pulled during the session? My memory is that it would still require a voter to have no party affiliation by January 1. Even die-hard party members tend to think this would be acceptable. I think it should be allowed up to a couple of weeks before the caucuses.
but for this election, the old rules still apply.
heck, it’s been talked about for years… She should join the Dems. She has a similar attitude to Mark Larson, the previous representative, that she should stay in the party and work to make it more inclusive.
good luck to that.
more than anything, if not slightly unrelated, we need professionals in these districts running the mill levy campaigns. if we had a coordinated, well-funded statewide effort to debruce as many districts as we could, then our schools and hospitals would be able to keep the much needed revenue and offer many badly needed services to our students and patients.
It hadn’t occurred to me before, but it could be possible that some of this vote is because of the health insurance reform passed by Congress.
My brother lived in Rifle years ago and they rejeced more funding. He moved to the front range. One Dr is a bad sample, but I know rural Dr’s are in short supply.
They’re not exactly strong on doctors to start with. I know a dentist and an ophthalmologist who are based in Durango but go over there during the week, too. You’re right, though. No doctor is going to have a family in Cortez (unless he’s very ideological or grew up there) when they don’t support public services.
…is that Roberts is very pro-TABOR and has a record that suggests as such
In addition, why the heck are they asking to De-Bruce, when they can simply ask for more money, while keeping TABOR intact? This isn’t a huge revelation, as many counties have rejected debrucing, well before the Tea Party movement started making noise
to DeBruce. So asking voters to do that is quite within the spirit of TABOR. So what’s your beef again?
…a “de-Brucing” does not mean that TABOR will not remain “intact,” as the above poster notes.
is a TABOR of the Mind, not the actual TABOR.
According to the “The Big Line,” he’s running for treasurer! It’s apparently too much to ask that candidates for state-wide office actually understand the basic elements of the actual (rather than imagined) state constitution.
Absolutely – voters can be asked to DeBruce, as it is fair game to vote on it
My point is that there is no need to ask to DeBruce for the sake of one municipal project – a specified tax increase will collect sufficient monies over time to fund any project – but a complete DeBrucing? A complete DeBrucing guarantees permanent revenues for the asking municipality, a collection that will go far beyond the price tag for one municipal project
The voting public is very intelligent – the defeated initiative noted in the article above would have had a much better chance of passing, had it not had a DeBrucing request built in
Face it guys – Colorado HEARTS TABOR
.761 to 3.5 is a rather significant hike. And then to ask for de-Brucing which would allow further raising without a vote.
That was asking a lot and gave the appearance of beingf grabby, whether that was the intention or not.
They should have just gone for the de-Brucing.
my understanding is that deBrucing would allow the district to keep all moneys raised by the property tax levy, not to raise the actual rate. So, I don’t see how this would allow further raising without a vote.
I agree, though, that they should have only gone for the deBrucing. The problem, I think, is that too many of these entities don’t have the resources to thoroughly examine the tax issues. When they decide they really must go to the voters they shoot for the whole thing because they are behind the curve. Just a guess.
DeBrucing would allow for tax increases without public approval
Second, any additional monies collected under TABOR must be refunded – under DeBrucing, additional monies would be kept by the government
It’s a huge step that changes taxes greatly
It’s a tax increase when the sales tax goes up by 1%. That’s a 1% tax increase. If we pass a law that says the government only keeps a part of it unless certain conditions are met and we get a rebate, that’s not a tax reduction, it’s a tax rebate. If the conditions change and more of the taxes are kept by the government, that is not a tax increase. If anything, it results in a reduction in the tax rebate. Owens understood this.
And take your patronizing attitude and shove it up your assembly.