2013 Legislative Session Predictions Thread

Democrats have the Presidency, Colorado’s Governor, and majorities in both Colorado houses. So, what will they do with that, for better or for worse? Predict away, Polsters. Those who make wildly incorrect predictions owe those who make correct predictions drinks at a to-be-discussed fall 2013 meetup.

About ProgressiveCowgirl

Colorado native, young professional, progressive cowgirl. 4-term FPE (aka masochist).

38 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DaftPunk says:

    What will lead the charge?  When will civil unions be introduced?

    • ProgressiveCowgirl says:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if they were. Morgan Carroll mentioned civil unions before any other issue in her email to supporters this morning. Our legislators knew and loved the dearly departed Dave Misner, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they honored his memory by introducing equality first.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      I know a lot of people that voted dem for state house and senate specifically to get civil unions. It’s not just that its expected, it’s that putting this through first and proudly will mean a lot of votes for Dems over the next 10 years (until its taken for granted).

      • DaftPunk says:

        I think there’s a lot of resentment against Democrats in Colorado for their “radical social agenda.”  I just think in a time when the economy still needs improvement, it reinforces too many negative stereotypes about the party.  

        • harrydoby says:

          Unlike when Bill Ritter was blind-sided by the union bill by the all-Democratic legislature, Hickenlooper will proactively work with the leadership to decide when the bill should be introduced, and to the specific contents.

          It’ll get done in the first few weeks of the session, whether it’s bill #1 or #10.

        • GalapagoLarry says:

          Since when is advocacy for civil equality a “negative  stereotype”? Democrats should be damned proud of their work to guarantee that all citizens are afforded, equally, the rights our constitution declares. Our commitment to civic opportunity for every person should be put to the forefront, not hidden.


          • DaftPunk says:

            Is that Dems don’t care about jobs, the economy, education, etc. and only exist to serve their special interests and identity politics.

            • GalapagoLarry says:

              We need to fix that.

              If, indeed, it is a stereotype.  My impression is, it’s more an unsuccessful and outdated Republican talking point.

              We don’t care about jobs? We just don’t buy into the phony “job creators” meme.

              We don’t care about the economy? We just don’t care about trickle down.

              We don’t care about education? We just don’t care about taking taxpayers’ money to support elitist and stratifying experiments, and we don’t care about firing teachers as the first solution to the problems facing our public education system.

              And, as long as there is still alive a being called Republican, Democrats don’t have to fear being “stereotyped” as the party that’s defending special interests and identity politics.

              If we have an image problem, we need to be wiser in the presentation of our positions and our concerns. But I feel strongly that civil rights provide the very foundation of today’s Democratic Party’s existence.  

          • Diogenesdemar says:

            but it is also the mirror image of the right’s claims, for example, “to only be protecting innocent and unborn life — Since when is protecting those that can’t protect themselves a ‘negative stereotype’?” . . .

            The fact is that one party’s “rights” and “justice” is the other party’s “social issues,” and vice versa.

            All of this needs to be done, but if the Democratic majority begins the session on “their social issues” instead of on jobs and the economy, DaftPunk is exactly right — they will have played right into the “only-concerned-about-social-issues” stereotype of their opponents.  What makes anyone think this will play better for the Democrats than it has of late for the  Republicans?  Maybe it’s because we’re interested in “rights” and “justice”?

            Keep in mind, too, that an unimaginable amount of time and effort will already be required to be spent sorting out all the many and various marijuana issues.  I’m glad 64 passed — I voted for it.  But, the potential for a legislative morass and quagmire on this one issue alone is extremely high (no pun intended).  Producing meaningful and believable jobs and education legislation this session is not going to happen automatically — and these need to happen first and foremost.

            • GalapagoLarry says:

              Civic equality for gay persons is not merely a “social issue”. Nor is women’s control of their child bearing. (Nor are ethnic minorities’ outsized incarceration rates and under-representation at high school and college graduation ceremonies–though you don’t mention them.) The right would have us believe these are merely “social issues”. Sometimes they even portray them as “religious issues”. “Special interests”. But we don’t have to fall for their characterizations.

              These are economic issues, serious economic issues to those affected. Demonstrably, these are jobs issues. And, yes they are justice issues, and why, oh, why should Democrats be shy of that?

              I don’t give a crap what the right thinks or how they try to pretzelize our thinking. But if we need to school ourselves on our own principled underpinnings, of which civil rights are the most basic, and if we need to better argue our positions in the public square, then let’s do so. If there’s an image problem, as you guys seem to reduce it to, we can fix it. But we cannot relegate our core beliefs to the back of the bus because we’re afraid of appearing too pushy.

              • DaftPunk says:

                Equality for sure.  Everything you write is true.

                It’s just if we’ re going to accuse them of being all about “God, guns, and gays” then we shouldn’t be either.

                Maybe that’s an old concern.  Maybe we like it now because it wins for us.

                Ultimately all electoral politics is sales and marketing.  I much prefer policy.

        • MtSherman says:

          Actually first out of the gate is probably a great idea if, IF, the idea is actually unpopular. If unpopular it leaves the maximum amount of time for the electorate to forget about the subject.

          Given the vote in Maryland, a state that is more conservative than Colorado on the subject of same sex marriage, I think Civil Unions would be down right popular. Probably in the 60% of the electorate range.

          This Nate Silver post on the subject projected Maryland being right on the cusp of accepting a Same Sex Marriage ban, much less approving of one. Given that Colorado is six notches less conservative on the subject I expect that in four years time gay marriage would be a positive referendum good for extra Democratic turn out and bigger majorities rather than being a deadly issue.

    • allyncooper says:

      redistricting changed that. But went to a TH meeting a couple days after the special session and a very dejected Steadman said he wasn’t going to reintroduce civil unions in 2013. He meant someone else would have to introduce it in the House and get it through there first.

      But elections have consequences, don’t they?  

      • GalapagoLarry says:

        I’ll suggest to the wonderful Dr. Irene Aguilar, that she help carry the ball forward in that chamber. I’m sure Mark Ferrandino is champing at the bit for another go-round in the House. He’s a consensus builder and prefers alliance politics, but I can’t help thinking he wouldn’t mind stuffing this in McNulty’s face first thing off the bat, the way McNulty back-stabbed everybody last session.

    • GalapagoLarry says:

      I’m tired of dancing, and imagine Colorado is too, around this “civil unions” Maypole.

      It’s time to go full out for marriage equality. “Civil unions” doesn’t provide equal protection. “Civil unions” doesn’t provide civic equality. “Civil unions” is just a sop to the religious right and other retrogrades to protect their idea of the word “marriage”, but it does nothing to recognize the desire and the right of gay persons to achieve equal standing in our society.

      • MtSherman says:

        Civil Unions would be a good thing for the next few years. Marriage equality is coming, but we will need to organize, raise money, and get a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Civil Unions are a good first step to get the electoral used to the idea AND to give everyone who needs an official relationship in the mean time.

        Look at the experience of Washington state. They approved domestic partnerships there in 2009 and approved them at the polls in November of 2009 by 53.15%. Would equal marriage have passed that year? I doubt it. Now three years later they approved it though, by 51.67%.

        Domestic partnerships are not the end game, they are a way point along a journey. I think that civil unions would be the smart way to go so that in four to six years we can get marriage equality here.

  2. Tazistan Jen says:

    I’d like to see the Colorado Dream Act pass.

  3. Diogenesdemar says:

    1. Jobs

    2. Jobs

    3. Jobs

    . . . I fear we won’t being feeling nearly as giddy this same time two years from now.

    • Dan Willis says:

      However, there are leftovers to clear out so they might as well them over with quickly.

      Unlike Congress, our legislature has repeatedly proved it can focus on more than one thing at a time.

      There are also a couple of election issues that need to be addressed before any community has another election.

      • so little time. As always.

        Things will flow more smoothly with Dem majorities at all levels, though. Expect some resistance from the Governlooper on a few of them.

        Dems always need to keep in mind that their job is responsible government, not nanny government as the Republicans would call it; generally, we do a good job at not “going wild”. Election issues really need to be spelled out in detail, though, because Gessler is intent on doing whatever he can at the edges to subvert things. And civil unions is, as you say, a leftover from last year that should be cleared out.

        We can get it all done, even in our short legislative session – and I’ll be happy to see it done.

      • Diogenesdemar says:

        but that . . .  

        Unlike Congress, our legislature has repeatedly proved it can focus on more than one thing at a time.

        . . . sounds like something McNulty or Stephens might have once said.

        I know it’s old fashioned, but most people still think there’s something improper with not eating your meat and taters before you start to tackle that cheesecake.

        As I noted above, this session will have it’s hands plenty full with just the budget, and sorting out the many marijuana issues without that turning into a circus.  Yes, we need to build some Gessler fences; yes, there’s the civil unions issue; but if jobs and education don’t get dealt with first, these other issues threaten to swamp the boat.

  4. caroman says:

    1) Eliminate CO capital gains exclusion.

    2) Restrict deduction for tuition program contributions to those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) less than $250,000.

    3) Restrict deduction for pension income to those with AGI less than $250,000.

    These will generate about $40 million per year.  Maybe use the funds to partially restore the education cuts we’ve endured.

    Question 1: If not now, when?

    Question 2: Would Hickenlooper veto these bills because of any latent presidential ambitions?

  5. Gilpin Guy says:

    and revitalizing our renewable industry brand.  Tesco contracting and Phillips pulling out aren’t the trends Democrats should accept.  Time to go all in to become the Silicon Valley of renewable fuels.

  6. allyncooper says:

    similar to what CA Assembly passed and Gov. Brown signed recently. HB 1156 which would have reformed foreclosure procedure died in House committee. Currently a lender can foreclose on a home without producing any documents other than an affidavit.

    Also HOA legislation requiring property management companies to be licensed by the Div. of Real Estate under DORA.    

  7. MADCO says:

    2013 COlorado legislative session

    – There will be one.

    –  Some bill swill past, not all that should and one or two that should not have.

    – Next May it will end.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.