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) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 24, 2010 07:52 PM UTC
29 Comments
Answer: Further back in time than many can remember. (Unfortunately, I can!)
At which point will the Dems toss the Marquess of Queensbury rule book and start getting their street rules up?
I am glad Colorado Dems have not been the habit of starting this kind of B.S. That said, Republican leadership in the GA is trying to send the signal that they are going to call the shots this session. Shaffer and friends need to take a stand, in part to strengthen the resolve of their own membership. There are still more Dems under the dome, and they need to act like it.
I know last session he got a ton accomplished. That leaves me hopeful that he’ll be equally effective this session.
Office space being just one of them.
We are witnessing some of the side effects of term limits. No respect for civility or tradition, and a focus on the here-and-now instead of on the long term.
This was also painfully obvious when JBC members broke with tradition and voted against the long bill.
Its really sad to see the Golden Dome turn into this.
Term limits have their pros and cons, but that is definitely one of the major flaws.
“institutional memory”
Prof. John Straayer at CSU has published some very interesting research on the Colo. Legislature and Term limits.
One article even point out that, on average, individual legislators in Colorado spend more total time in the Gen. Assembly after term limits was enacted!!
Straayer seems to think that this is a result of a “conveyer-belt” situation where people enter in the house, and wait for their “turn” to run for senate.
that the majority of the “pro” term limits people were the cons.
That was Kent Lambert, for the 2010 bill. As far as anyone knows, no one had ever done that before, no matter how divided the JBC was over the bill They ALWAYS presented a united front. Lambert’s excuse was that there were changes in the bill in its final version that he didn’t agree with – but he did vote it out of the JBC and did vote in favor of it in House Appropriations.
I remember voting for term limits many years ago.
Now, I’d vote to repeal them.
The unintended consequences of term limits far outweigh the “business as usual” way it was.
Civility, institutional memory, victims both.
…Lobbyists.
When they’re the only ones who’ve been there long enough to know how to get things done, they’re the only ones who do get things done.
Another consequence of term limits.
The lobbyist-as-institutional-memory thing has gotten so bad, so pervasive that Andrew Romanoff actually said during the U.S. Senate campaign that it was good to have lobbyist input on legislation – because they understand the issues.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not Andrewbashing here. His sincere statement, as someone who I would consider an ethical lawmaker in general, shows how deeply term limits have harmed the Assembly.
having lobbyists under the dome is bad for the legislature. Also, having lobbyists’ input, the ones who understand both sides of an issue, is bad for the process.
Hmmmm.
Oh, you mean the lobbyists who impartially represent both sides of an issue (seeking only the greatest good) regardless of the monied interests involved?
Again, I say,
In my experience, most good lobbyists have been around longer than most legislators and know the issues better.
They are the institutional memory, like it or not.
Only a cynic or the ill informed rely on gross generalizations; I don’t think you’re either of those.
But, I could be wrong.
Hmmmm.
Even before term limits.
first we have “lobbyists,” then later “most good lobbyists,” and then later (Droll’s) “some lobbyists” — and I’m guessing we have radically different views on how those groupings intersect or are quantified.
I will say that, I am fairly certain that understanding the arguments (“issues,” as you call them) and fairly representing those arguments are far, far, far too often not the same.
And, it’s an extremely specious argument that the fact that some lobbyists have been around the state house longer than most legislators gives them better insight into any (every?) particular issue — except for maybe the workings of the state house, per se.
So, if my seeing this as so makes me ill informed? Then maybe. And, a cynic? Most definitely.
You’re getting that unreasonable tone.
To be fair, it’s not the lobbyist’s job to fairly represent an issue. Just like any citizen would, they will press the good of their side. It’s the legislator’s job to figure out which is more right.
Lobbyists have good information. On the issues they are paid to represent, what happens when stupid language is added to bills, and how to pass bills they see as good. Generally speaking you can get a lot of insight from a longtime lobbyist on an issue that doesn’t touch them. It’s helped me before.
It isn’t fair to infer, as JeffCo Blue did, that having lobbyists as the institutional memory of the legislature in Colorado is bad.
It also isn’t fair to infer that all lobbyists only represent monied interests bent on subverting the greatest good.
And you are correct in saying that not all lobbyists are wonderful people who are concerned about the greater good. Many are, and others aren’t – true.
I would argue that fairly representing the issues is the key to credibility. If someone speaks to me and tells me false arguements, I won’t believe them in the future.
The reason that lobbyists in Colorado have better insight on bills is because they’ve seen other legislators introduce the same bill in previous years. Seems to happen evey 5-10 years that issues are recycled.
A new legislator will think they have a great idea (say, abolish the business personal property tax…). Most legislators are either too busy with their own issues or don’t understand the ramifications, so it falls to the fourth estate to gently remind that new legislator that some years ago so and so discussed this very same idea (probably formed a study group that has some report somewhere) and here’s what happened…
That makes lobbyists, in Colorado, a big part of the institutional memory for the legislator and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
And my concern/assertion is that receiving remuneration for representing an issue (on behalf of an interested party) provides a screen to just how “fairly” the remunerated individual represents that issue.
Would work well in the black and white world of true or false. On nearly all of the issues faced by a legislator, the fact is, however, — whether they recognize it or not — that we live in a world of true true, mostly-true true, usually-true true, often-true true sometimes-true true, infrequently-true true, rarely-true true, and never-true true (false) — along with all of the intermediary shades of truth.
But, I do like Droll’s near sugguestion that a highly credible source of insight would be the longtime lobbyists who aren’t be paid to lobby on the issue being considered. (If we could find some way to codify this principle I could envision a kind of “race to the top,” with all of the various corporations and unions competing to not pay the lobbyists who will best represent their interests before the legislature.)
Would be to disallow political candidates and office holders from accepting campaign money from lobbyists. Period.
Pay all the lobbyists as much as you want, but their influence would be tied to the validity of their arguements and not to the amount of money contributed to or any fundraiser organized for a given person or organization.
Pie in the sky, I know…
This discussion was far too reasonable and civil.
And a Beejing pox on all your Beejing measley Beejing efforts, you Beejing Beejhead Beej!
You’re right, that does feel better? :~)
Everybody is into politics and nobody is into solving problems. Eventually the problems will swallow us or we’ll work on solving them in a practical manner.
Republicans are a politics first crowd so it is going to be hilarious to see what kind of sleazy shenanigans they try to rig redistricting. My bold prediction is no midnight redistricting this time. They might be slimy but they don’t hold all the cards. This should be a really good fight. Move Salida into 3 and Pueblo into 5. That ought to shake em up some.
Hail Hail Freedonia!