President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Anna Stout





CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Richard Holtorf

(R) Deborah Flora




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Doug Lamborn*


CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen


CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Scott James




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 17, 2023 8:25 am MST

2023 Colorado General Assembly Special Session Day 1 Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

The fun starts here.


17 thoughts on “2023 Colorado General Assembly Special Session Day 1 Open Thread

  1. Here's a link to what I think is the biggest bill, the main event, for the special session. Did the world's quickest skim, and it looks like temporary residential tax rate relief (one year I think) similar to some of the numbers in HH, with $65 million to backfill local governments and $135 mill to state K-12 school fund. There are a fair number of other bills in the special session queue as well.

  2. Don't know what the legislature is likely to come up with … But yesterday's Colorado Sun article points out the difficulties:  Colorado state budget concerns cast shadow over special session on property taxes

    During the special session, lawmakers plan to take as much as $200 million from the state’s general fund to offset the impact of property tax cuts on schools, fire districts and some local governments….

    The simplest way to balance the budget is to tap the state’s reserve fund, which today is set at 15% of general fund spending, or $2.2 billion.

    Polis has said he’s open to doing so to cover the cost of property tax cuts. Republicans support dipping into the reserves, too.

    But Democratic budget writers Thursday reiterated their opposition.

    I continue to think a longer-term answer is getting rid of the taxing restrictions and moving to a spending cap.  Shift to a cap on overall government spending that can only rise with a supermajority of the legislature or a vote of the people during a even-year general election.  Then use a biannual budget process, with one legislative session devoted to spending within the cap, the next devoted to revenue.  And let the legislature decide on the best balance of taxes:  property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, and any of the other possible government revenue sources

    1. I thought part of the problem is that there are many overlapping property tax districts, each with its own mill levy. Wouldn't the offset for each one of these have to be handled separately?

      Seems like an easier approach would be to define a blanket reduction in assessed values that applies to all property and all the tax districts.

      On the other hand, the higher assessments reflect the higher cost of real estate, which eventually will be reflected in the costs of everything else. Reduce the property tax rate (or assessed values) now and the schools and roads will get even worse than they are now.

  3. WOTD: Israel's 15 years of Politics of Denial. Josh Marshall at TPM.

    As always, Josh is an informative source on many topics. (I've always believed that journalists should have a degree in history, or as in Mike Littwin's case, come from sports journalism where you can't lie without getting caught.).

    Many people think that the core of Netanyahu-ism is the settler movement and hawkish foreign policy. That’s wrong. They are both parts of his politics certainly. Perhaps the single clearest through-line to the man going back four decades has been opposition to the creation of any Palestinian state, regardless of its size and contiguity. But the real core of his politics during his first and especially his second lengthy runs of power has been the premise that the occupation can be perpetuated indefinitely with no unmanageable costs. Just a perpetual kicking of cans down the road, with neither annexation nor settlement, just management. And management which, to paraphrase Donald Trump, only he can accomplish.

    That idea more than anything else is the one the massacres of October 7th exploded, though as I wrote a month ago, what comes after it is much less clear. That is what makes Netanyahu’s continuance in office so profoundly destructive, both for Israel and the for the United States. Even if he is discredited he remains the one making the key decisions, not just today but also for a tomorrow his rule may not live to see.

    We can see with great clarity now there can’t really be a discussion of “day after” questions until Israel gets to the “day after” Netanyahu’s time in power. But his very unpopularity keeps him and the members of his Knesset majority paradoxically locked in place. If he goes they all go, if not necessarily in their individual seats than in their collective hold on power.

    1. I agree that the settler movement on the West Bank is a major problem for Israel. Netanyahu has pandered bigly to the far right that supports settlers.

      However, Palestinians have had multiple opportunities to agree to a two state solution, beginning in 1948. They have always chosen war of some sort. Hard to have much sympathy for their cause, especially since the Arab world has seen them only as useful tools for its foreign policy.

          1. Actually, it only changes color (mustard yellow for me) when I hover over the link, otherwise it is dark blue whether or not I’ve followed the link before, virtually indistinguishable from the nearby black text. It behaves the same on both Chrome/Windows and Safari/iPad for me, anyway.

            I can’t recall on the old site if links were red before or after being clicked. But they were easily recognized as links, whatever the color was.

            PS. Thanks, Alva — Edit works!

  4. Sadly, I was right

    Although Wallace found that Trump engaged in insurrection, she determined Section 3 does not apply to him. Section 3 refers to some offices and refers to those who are an “officer of the United States,” but does not specifically mention the presidency.

    Wallace determined “the drafters of the Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend to include the President as ‘an officer of the United States.’”

    The Supreme Court has previously held that “officers of the United States” are not elective offices.

    The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” [U.S. Constitution] Art. II, §2, cl. 2.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

102 readers online now


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