U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
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*
(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%
July 01, 2019 11:27 AM UTC
10 Comments
And they have Larry, Curly and Amos as named plaintiffs.
I know the Court reads Pols, so please go ahead and expand this narrow case to examine the original intent behind reading bills at length, and let's see if the intent really was to let partisans run out the clock or stall when they're in the minority. My fervent hope is that Coloradans of the past were more practical than that.
it's not a law. -it's internal House process
How would any court have jurisdiction?
I smell a fundraising effort
Sorry, was thinking about CO Constitution Art. V Sec. 22, which says "Every bill shall be read by title when introduced, and at length on two different days in each house; provided, however, any reading at length may be dispensed with upon unanimous consent of the members present." I think the House rule more or less lays out the House procedure for doing what the Constitution specifies when a member requests a reading out loud.
I thought the tongue-in-cheek of my original comment was more obvious than apparently it was. However, the Rs did lean on the Constitution this session to show they had the right to have bills read at length, then bragged about how they were using it to stall.
That's why I'm interested in the intent behind having bills read at length – there's actually a little bit about it in the Motion To Dismiss in the CPR story linked in this diary. It says reading laws were enacted before the digital age when bills became available online, and to make sure bills weren't passed "without giving the members of the Legislature an opportunity to study their contents." It's a random sample of two sentences to be sure, but it didn't mention stalling as a legitimate reason to have bills read at length. I don't at all think that makes stalling illegal or more immoral than any type of filibuster, but I do think there could be a worthy discussion to try avoiding a repeat of what happened in 2019.
I went looking and found two general rationales for "oral reading" of proposed laws.
Interested if you have a ballpark as to how long it's been since it actually was a challenging process to do copies for 100 people. As to the first bullet point, not gonna touch it!
Well, mimeograph machines were readily available in the 50s. I have no doubt there was at least one at the Capitol way back then. So this law has been superfluous for almost 70 years.
As I learned earlier this year, much to my sorrow, this "law" is enshrined in the Colorado Constitution.
If Colorado stays consistently blue for three or four election cycles, it may be worth considering a Constitutional Convention to craft a new document. There's a fair amount in there which is anachronistic (as demonstrated by the recent "slavery" removal), micromanaging (parliamentary procedure for the House debate process), and positively threatening (the Gordian knot of mandates without funding, and funding limits which did not anticipate mandates).
Make most of what's in there laws. Mandate that courts ought to consider those laws in light of their one-time status as Constitutional. Then write a document of basic principals of government, Colorado-style. Then start the multiple-session process of whacking out laws that no longer serve a purpose. [Maybe even dedicate the first week of each legislative session to repeals only.]
There already is a state committee to examine statutes (not the Constitution) with the goal of getting rid of obsolete or redundant language. This is kind of case-by-case, not geared toward a big rewrite, but it shows we have some institutional awareness that laws need updates or corrections to keep with the times.
The question before the court: “What is the “intelligible way” to read to Colorado’s Legislative Republicans”????? . . .
. . . the findings will no doubt have to be read, and then explained at length, to the plaintiffs.
. . .
(A post summary comprehension test will not be required — there’s no chance any of them will be able to read the questions, let alone answer any properly.)