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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 26, 2011 01:36 AM UTC

Gessler "Fixes" The Rules?

  • 22 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We spent the better part of the morning conferring with sources about a report from our friend Ralphie, writing at his Junction Daily Blog. Check out what Secretary of State Scott Gessler has apparently proposed in response to a mistake in legislation passed this year moving up Colorado’s primary election date:

When the General Assembly passed SB11-189, which moved the date of the Primary elections up to June, it made a mistake. It forgot to also adjust the schedule for filing campaign finance reports. Under the previous statute, campaign finance reports are not due until July.

That left a conflict in the legislation. The Legislature clearly intended for people to report their finances in the months leading up to the Primary. But it forgot to say so when it moved the date of the Primary…

Gessler has issued a proposed rulemaking that attempts to reconcile the conflicting provisions of the campaign finance legislation. His solution?

Gessler’s solution appears to be to eliminate certain biweekly reports required of primary candidates in the weeks prior to the election–by statute beginning in July, a date that mistakenly wasn’t changed when the election date itself was. Primary candidates would still be subject to numerous other other periodic campaign finance reporting requirements, but this would have the effect of reducing both the volume and timeliness of disclosure just before primaries. It resolves the “glitch,” but on the side of less disclosure.

1  Rule 5.13 would be adopted as follows:

2  5.13 REPORTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES REQUIRED BY

3  SECTION 1-45-108(2)(A)(I)(B), C.R.S., ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE FILED.   THIS IS TO

4  RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SECTIONS  1-45-108(2)(A)(I)(A) AND  (B), C.R.S.,  

5  CREATED BY THE PASSAGE OF  SENATE  BILL  11-189, WHICH ADJUSTS THE DATE OF THE

6  PRIMARY ELECTION TO THE LAST TUESDAY IN JUNE

We don’t claim to be experts, but couldn’t this have been fixed simply by changing the date that these particular reports need to begin? Couldn’t the legislature fix this next January in time to have biweekly reporting for primaries by May? Either way, it does seem like a case of going after the proverbial gnat with a sledgehammer. And even if Gessler’s intentions are benign, we’ve heard there is a significant difference of opinion on whether he has the authority to eliminate these reporting requirements. Given the way this story could be spun against Gessler–the headline “Brazen Attempt to Reduce Election Transparency” comes to mind–he might have been better off letting the legislature fix what seems to be their minor mistake.

Tweet
Share

Comments

22 thoughts on “Gessler “Fixes” The Rules?”

  2. Thanks to Luis Toro for steering me to the proposed rulemaking.

    Although I have little or no life, I still have enough life left to forget to scan the SoS web site for proposed rulemakings.

    1. I do notice that not even the paranoid Pols were about to get too worked up about this. It looks to me like Gessler is just trying to resolve the legislature’s screwup. Since candidates are already filing quarterly and monthly reports, do you really need these too?

      2. is with a bill early next session.  It’s NOT to issue a rulemaking that allows candidates to hide contributions until after an election.

        The General Assembly convenes in January.  That’s plenty of time to get a correction to the statute out in time for a June primary.

        1. And it’s very interesting that Gessler immediately jumps right over the simple sensible fix to one that helps keep things opaque until after elections.

          1. is Gesslers office failing to mention the accidental ommision. I don’t believe at all that his office missed the error. Of course, I wouldn’t trust that guy with my oldest pair of shoes

        2. and accidental errors it would really have to happen in January. But, of course, since the GOP won’t have any primaries as they rarely do it will be in GOP’s interest in legislature to drag it out

  3. 5.13 REPORTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES REQUIRED BY

    3 SECTION 1-45-108(2)(A)(I)(B), C.R.S., ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE FILED. THIS IS TO

    4 RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SECTIONS 1-45-108(2)(A)(I)(A) AND (B), C.R.S.,

    5 CREATED BY THE PASSAGE OF SENATE BILL 11-189, WHICH ADJUSTS THE DATE OF THE

    6 PRIMARY ELECTION TO THE LAST TUESDAY IN JUNE.

    1. 1. Move up the reporting date, in keeping with the intent of the law.

      2. Eliminate the reporting requirement, thumbing his nose at the law and “advancing the conservative agenda.”

      3. Notify the legislature that they had a problem that needed fixing. This actually could be played for a little theater making himself look better.

      4. Do nothing.

      He chose to thumb his nose at the law.

      So tell us all why you think this is such a good thing.

      1. maybe you can explain why you feel compelled to defend every damn thing a Republican does when you don’t show that you even understand the topic at hand. Why be a ‘bot?

        1. Gessler claims there is a conflict between existing CRS 1-45-108 and the newly passed SB-11-189.

          Does this man not at least deserve benefit of doubt? If he is so irreprehensible as to automatically not be trusted, then why the fuck do we have elections? Fine, let’s stop having elections and the ensuing government. I am okay with this.

          Before I Can judge Gessler I have to understand what his supposed conflict is? I have tried to locate some background info but I cannot.

          Maybe there is a real conflict?

          Maybe Scotty is full of it?

          Maybe there is a real conflict and Scotty has chosen the wrong solution?

          I just can’t make an informed decision yet.

          I need more understanding of this supposed legal conflict.

  4. …until the legislature fixes this, I do not see that he has much choice to proceed as he is now. Had he been on the ball, his office would have pointed this out to the legisature when the bill was being considered. But being on the ball is apparently too much to ask of this SoS.

    The GA needs to get on this as soon as they convene in Jan. amd push through a legislative correction with all possible speed.

    1. The bill was repassed in its final form on April 19.  The GA was in session until May 11.  The proposed rulemaking was issued on May 13, only two days after the Legislature adjourned.  You know it had to be in drafting well before that–while the GA was still in session.

      There was time to get this fixed in the last session if fixing it was something Gessler really wanted to do. A leadership bill could have been run in a few days. Instead, Gessler waited for the GA to adjourn and then issued his opportunistic rulemaking proposal.

      2. Given the choice between doing it the right way or the sneaky way to benefit secretive campaign funding, why is anyone surprised which path Gessler chose?

  5. Senate bill 11-252. It was introduced late and lacked consensus behind its changes. The sponsor ended up asking for it to be killed (which it was).

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

120 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!