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%
February 17, 2023 10:02 AM UTC
14 Comments
I can write a treatise at the length of the stuff Steve Harvey used to post here about problems with caucus, but I won't because:
Petitioning as the only way to reach a ballot would by and large favor the wealthy, who can afford petitioning companies. Petitioning is a pain in the ass for candidates and volunteers and staff, plus it's not that fun for ordinary people getting bugged for signatures when they'd rather just enjoy their day.
And petitioning has always been an option for those who don't want to go through caucus and assemblies anyway, with or without a Kent Thiry mandate. A round of boos to him, not a round of booze!
Good to hear the state bill died. Now, decline to sign Thiry's petition, whenever it might arrive. And careful, it will be presented to you draped in the typical language about how he's trying to "save democracy" and all that jazz.
Screw this guy.
Let the parties do what they want.
I have a hard time with the combo of "petition only" and "let the unaffiliated sign petitions" elements of the legislation. That would remove the most evident way for a political party to exercise power in the choice of candidates.
There are a variety of other ways to diminish the power of the fringes that make more sense to me.
Here's my thought on this. First, you have IRV jungle primaries where the top 4 go on to the general election. And the general is also IRV. This makes it doable for a sane Republican and a Moderate Democrat to be on the general ballot.
Second, you lower the signature collection numbers a lot. For governor, senator, etc. say 100 signatures from each congressional district. Very doable and not that much effort.
Third, as an alternative, whatever the general cost of collecting 800 signatures from professionals is, allow people on also by just paying the fee. If the money is going to be spent, give it to the state.
IRV sounds good, but Australia has a ranked voting system and they elect idiots just like we do. I think humans are going to find a way to screw things up regardless of what the voting system mechanics are.
Also you lost me at "sane Republican."
I'm just here to award points for the use of the phrase "…turning the Colorado Party into a barn of drooling nitwits".
The caucus process is deeply flawed, but I don't think that Thiry and Kirkmeyer have the right answer.
I went to my Republican caucus in Lakewood a few times in the late '00s and early '10s. What I found was that the big decisions on candidate selection had already been made somewhere else. We were expected to merely endorse those selections and then cough up the cash to be able to attend the county and state conventions. I never "coughed."
"We were expected to merely endorse those selections and then cough up the cash to be able to attend the county and state conventions."
I remember attending my first Dem caucus in 1992 and hearing someone say that the GOP charged admission fees at their caucuses. I thought that was a joke. Apparently not.
The state wasn't paying for caucus expenses, so they money had to come from somewhere — Democratic donors and Republican "per head" options both have problems.
Subject to certain limitations involving fundamental rights or suspect classifications (e.g., the whites-only primary), political parties are allowed to make their own rules as to candidate selection.
There has been a long line of US Supreme Court and lower court cases holding as such.
In fact, one Colorado federal court case from back in the late ’80’s held that the state statute requiring that a candidate be a member of a political party for a certain length of time prior to nomination was unconstitutional when the Democrats wanted to nominate Martha Ezzard, a Republican state legislator, to run in CD 6 against Dan Schaffer. The federal court said that the state statute had to yield to the political party’s decision.
If the GOP wants to ban independents or independents and non-MAGA Republicans from participating in candidate selection, so be it. Frankly, I think it would be cheaper and less disingenuous for the state party to simply send a list of potential candidates to Mar-A-Lago, and let Orange Jesus cross off the names of the unacceptable.
I don't know what the problem with the republican method is. Why change something that is a wild success?
I am one of the biggest haters of the caucus system. There are no controls on it so it becomes something of a free-for-all that only serves to piss off the largest number of people possible. As an elections person, it makes my skin crawl thinking of all the fudged vote counts, questionable math, and even uncounted votes (horrors!!!!).
On top of that, they are horribly expensive and that is money that the parties have to raise and spend that would be better used for getting their people elected, rather than simply on the ballot.
I do think the parties need a mechanism to select their own candidates. That is their principle purpose after all. But I have long advocated the complete removal of the caucuses (no it is not Caucusi, it’s not a Latin word) and leave the nominating abilities to each district central committee (or the state central committee for state-wide office). These are people who were selected in the odd years, when we we not in the heat of an election, and are generally there to promote what they think the party as a whole should be doing, vs. there for the sole purpose of supporting one candidate, which is what we get with the current system. Using this process would also make it easier for parties to fill those precinct committee people slots that are never completely filled since they come with the ability to vote in the nominating assemblies.
Now along with this, I want to keep the petition process for those who think any party system is rigged or they feel petitioning gets them “closer to the people” – yeah, not really, but it makes a good soundbite. I do like the idea of having a fee which skips all of this for those with enough money. (Again just get to the part most voters care about – what are going to do if elected?). In the end, most voters don’t care how a candidate got on the ballot, they care about that candidate’s positions (and in recent elections, mental capacity). Unless they are an attractive celebrity, then they often care more about that.
If I was in the legislature I would not support the Thiry-Kirkmeyer proposal because it takes all decisions out of the parties’ hands. So in a nutshell, yes party’s should be able to pick their candidates, but there is no need for the expense and drama of a caucus, and we have to keep a process in place for partisan candidates to achieve the ballot outside of the party structure.
The IRV comments are a completely different conversation, so I’ll stop here.
Now Mr. Thirey can put his $$$ where his mouth is and finance another ballot initiative to do that which the state affairs committee declined to do.
Or Kristie Burton Brown and her successor can move the GOP state central committee to vote to close its primaries from participation by independents and non-MAGA Republicans, then sue the Secretary of State to enforce the party's bylaws change.