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 10, 2012 06:45 PM UTC
10 Comments
Any guesses on which of the other bills deserve to be considered?
And others, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Two bills, SB 2, Civil Unions, and SB 165, Water Projects, are going to be part of the session. After that, unless the Governor identifies specific bills in the ‘title’ of the session, which I’ve never seen happen, general descriptions, such as, ‘economic development’ and ‘public safety’ open up the session for all kinds of trouble.
Remember, Hickenlooper said the session would ‘address bills dealing with public safety, economic development and water projects’. The Republican’s, or the Democrats for that matter, can bring bills back that had died before or were not heard during the general session. Economic Development could mean business personal property tax, the RTA bill Hickenlooper vetoed, tax credits for something or other…Public Safety could mean any number of things, from immigration to sentencing reform…Civil unions doesn’t just mean SB 2, I’m expecting a Republican bill that declares marriage just between men and women, or something like that.
There could be two bills, there could be thirty. Special sessions are heavy on politics (especially in a big election year). Anyone who thinks the Republicans are just going to sit back and let the Governor dictate the terms of a legislative session is missing the point. It’s going to get political real, real fast.
I wouldn’t be surprised, after all the dust settles, if the only bills to pass out of the session were the non-controversial bills that died on the House calendar that were not amended into Senate bills during the final day.
Means Steve King’s bill comes back.
From the Governor’s presser, the subjects are:
В· Funding of Colorado Water Conservation Board projects.
В· Penalties for persons who drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
В· Authorization of civil unions.
В· Administration of the unemployment insurance program to stabilize unemployment insurance rates, facilitating the issuance of unemployment revenue bonds and accelerating the creation of the Division of Unemployment Insurance in the Department of Labor and Employment.
В· Creating “benefit corporations” in Colorado.
В· Registering Special Mobile Machinery Fleets.
В· Submitting to the registered electors of the State of Colorado an amendment to the Colorado Constitution repealing provisions deemed obsolete.
Gives King lots of wiggle room.
Isn’t that second thing exactly King’s bill? Or is there something else it could be referencing?
Yeah, my bad
I was thinking of another bill-recodification of interlock devices.
That’s pretty much the exact title of King’s Bill.
Dan is right though, I’m not sure that directive allows definition of new offenses, which King’s bill does (creates a new offense of drugged driving per se). I’m sure his leadership will rule it in, as far as Dems, they probably will also. It actually passed the senate comfortably in its current form, just died on the calendar.
It can stiffen/weaken penalties for currently defined terms, but no redefine what constitutes intoxication or under the influance.
So glad they didn’t go broad with the session topics…
Elections do have consequences and Hickenlooper is showing some chops.
Thanks for your analysis Mater.