President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 14, 2007 03:59 PM UTC
8 Comments
Loading ...
Frankly, I for one am glad this turned out the way it did. I think that despite the feelings of political insiders, a good majority of the public is glad to see the legislative process actually working as it is actually supposed to work.
The complaints about this veto basically seem to stem from the idea that Ritter should made deals with legislators, and/or acted based on deals that he’d previously made, rather than just enact his idea of what is best for Colorado. I couldn’t disagree more. I’m actually pretty sick of a legislative process where certain bills have already been practically decided before they come up in committee for the first time.
Kudos to Ritter!
I posted this in an effort to bring the politics involved here to the attention of the legislative aides (or legislatures) that peruse this blog. I got into an argument with a couple of them about this whole thing a few days ago. The legislature is trying to cast the blame for the whole thing on Ritter when he is just doing what he was elected to do. Despite a questionnaire filled out early in the campaign, MOST people voted for Ritter not because of his stance on unions, but because of his integrity and his promise to overcome partisan politics in an effort to do what is best for Colorado. Fizt-Gerald and her supporters are just mad he isn’t the rubber stamp they were hoping for.
Just look at the votes in Congress. They often break down on party lines with heavy debate, so what? There is just no middle ground on some bills and the party in power will often do what they believe is best with or without common ground. The GOV was off base to expect common ground. He should done what he said he would do. I agree, “Governor Ritter needed an excuse,” Balmer said. “And that was his excuse.” Labor have every right to be seething. They would foolish not to be.
There may be party line votes on the floor, but there are always discussions going on behind the scenes. That is where the work is done and that is where the middle ground is sought.
I don’t think the Ritter was off base to expect both sides to find common ground on this. I was not in the back rooms and did not work the bill, but I did hear that both sides were unwilling to give an inch. That is what Ritter was referring to when he said this “was a bitter, divisive and partisan battle”.
The Governor wasn’t looking for an excuse; he was signaling Fitz-Gerald that he understands the process all too well and will veto what he sees fit, IMHO.
It sounds to me like some legislators are making excuses for their lack of finding common ground.
What common ground would you suggest? I have a few ideas, but would like to hear yours. And consider that the Colorado DEMS were just trying to put our State under the same labor laws as other normal (non union busting) States.
Consider also that the business establishment was just arguing to maintain the status quo. They really did not have a strong case to prove their claims that 1072 would have hurt business. They just wanted to keep the upper hand. That of course is a baised opinion.
But it seemed labor could have raised the percentage to accept unionizing if business accepted the one vote instead of two.
Again, I didn’t have a dog in this fight. But conversations I had with others interested in the bill mentioned this as an idea. If they could come up with this as a middle ground, why couldn’t business and labor?
Fair enough. I guess a one vote ballot could have been discussed with the stipulation of NEUTRALITY by the employer, but that still would have made us a modified right to work state based on current standards. Ask yourself this, WHY would most employers want to stop union organizing? It clears way for the bigger question – How can middle ground be reached when the other party does not want you to exsist?