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
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 06, 2007 04:58 PM UTC
41 Comments
Who can trust what AG Suthers “believes” the Constitution says? He’s almost as reliable at Alberto Gonzales when it comes to interpretting the Constitution.
For what reason do you base your cracked out theory that Suthers is “as bad as Gonzo” other than Suthers is a Republican? Please, tell me what has the man done? I can’t WAIT to hear some sort of realistic and coherant answer other than some biased one liners. Oh, also, since you know so much about Suthers, go ahead and reference legal cases in which you disagree with him and why, based upon your vast legal knowledge.
And just so you know, anything about Suthers being a Bush appointee or Owens appointee won’t fly.
And I said “almost as reliable as” not “as bad as”
Having said that you still haven’t offered any support to your accusation that Suthers is out to try and “silence all opinions like Gonzo”. So what if he was on the wrong side of a trial or two? Guess what, no one is on the right side all the time. And you would have to be missing something to think that the Colorado Confidential really gave you both sides of that story.
It’s one thing to disagree politically, but if you’re going to compare Suthers to “Gonzo”, you better have more evidence to support you than the fact that both are Republicans
You are the one making the link between the two being republicans. I see Suthers actions as politically motivated, which was the comparison to Gonzo, not their affiliation.
Just a coincidence, right? Bringing up our republican att’y general and a largely unpopular and scandal plauged republican offical in the same artical.
I’m assuming the name “go blue” has nothing to do with blue being the color for democrats either, right?
Please, if you know of one, point out another example for me to use when referring to an AG who is toeing the line of political posturing over the people’s right. Both offices are “supposed” to work for all the people of the respected state and united state, not just those who voted for them.
Just because Suthers isn’t a liberal Democrat doesn’t mean he isn’t representing the people who of Colorado. You sited one case in from a newpaper article that doesn’t attempt to show both sides as your basis for a wide accusation that he doesn’t represent all people. Doesn’t hold a lot of water buddy.
And while we’re on the subject of high and mighty public serve, Janet Reno didn’t represent me when she ordered government officals to take a six year old child out of a home at gun point. So maybe you could compare Suthers to her because she sure as hell wasn’t representing “all people”. Holy crap, in fact she was Clinton’s lap dog just like “Gonzo” is Bush’s
No we can agree. Gonzo is Bush’s lapdog.
Good job, you now understand the presidential appointment process. Glad I could give you a basic civics lesson.
Odd, no comment about all your high and mighty public servant crap you ignorantly spewed. So do Democrat appointees represent “all people”, or is that something that only republicans have to do?
Public service is just crap? Sounds like someone missed their basic civics lesson years ago. I’ve always understoof the presidential appointment process, but that has nothing to do with the judicial branch being used a campaign HQ for the Republican party.
I except the same from both parties, to represent their constituents with as much balance as possible. I rarely see it from those on the right.
Or just fly off the handle? Take a look again and read slow. Let me know if you need me to spell it out for you. I’ll give you a hint: I wasn’t saying public service was crap-just your views that if someone isn’t a liberal democrat like you that they aren’t a good public servant. If you can figure that out without further explaination, you just might be ok.
Or you can continue to play partisan games and fly off the handle by trying to put words in my mouth.
“Keep the crap flowin'”
You people can’t possibly believe the endless flow of crap we’ve gotten from a wild-eyed left-wing legislature so far is going to play well with the voters in 2008?
Wait. Don’t answer that. Of course you do! (Republicans are keeping real quiet about things right now. But secretly we are so loving this stuff. The Democrats are bolstering our 2008 message and the more they heap it on and stronger it gets. Yes!).
By 2008 the electorate will be so impressed, stumbles and all, that it will be a Democratic rout. State, Federal.
Be a good Boy Scout: Be Prepared, Doc.
Lame anti-war resolutions, gay adoption that explicity flout the will of the voters of Ref. I, union bills so ridiculous even the liberal governor found the good sense to veto, crazy anti-education lefties telling people they’re going to hell because they support educating our kids in the most effective way possible, letting felons vote–for political gain, obviously, tearing down common sense standards for math and science education, telling parents how their kids should be educated about sex, and on and on it goes?
Oh yeah! Voters are just *loving* this stuff!
Parsing, you and most people on this blog love this stuff. I’m afraid you are very alone. I don’t assume that voters right now are fuming to get back at the Dems. I wish that were true–I just don’t think people care too much right now. But when the Wadhams machine starts lowlighting the Dems’ crazy record the voters will be shocked at the overt liberalism that is waaaaay off the mainstream in Colorado.
I’m concerned about how things will go nationally. But, like I said, in Colorado Republicans are secretly gathering champagne bottles for our big celebration next year.
in November 2008.
People will remember things like the prescription drug program, our getting out of Iraq, the investments in alternative energies, etc. I had a thread bare pair of pants once that had more substance than the Republican agenda and accomplishments. The charade is over, the wizard behind the curtain is revealed.
There is absolutely nothing out there that indicates a Republican/conservative comeback.
The American public has caught on to the agenda and they are fed up with job loss, enless war, expensive and inequitable health care, expensive and elitist education, and many issues that REALLY matter compared to guns, gays, and god.
2008 will be another 1932. Hoover, Bush, what’s the difference?
Yeah, the denial of civil unions for gays MUST mean that we don’t want them to adopt either! Never mind that this study from UCLA (PDF) shows that denying gay couples adoption will cost the foster care system $130 million annually. (HT to The Stranger for the report.) Big government Repulsive Radical Republicans don’t care about such expenditures. Just gotta protect the kids from a happy healthy childhood because they might learn not to hate gays because that’s who is rearing them.
I’m sure you’ll have nothing to say to this, like you usually do not when confronted with the facts.
Do you think thar message of the Republicans want to keep the crap flowin will work? I don’t.
We have been roundly trounced at the polls, marginalized, and are out of power, and our political capital with the people of Colorado is nil. It’s all going according to plan !
More mindless cheerleading.
We got beaten like a bongo drum in November. We’re out of power. It’s kind of like being in a hail (hell?) storm. You can’t go anywhere, you can’t do anything, you can just sit and watch everything around you get brutalized by the hail. But after it’s done people come out, help clean things up, and soon enough the sun is shining again. I think it’s a great time to be a Republican in Colorado. We’re just waiting your hail storm out. But the sun is right around the corner. In fact, forecast–however unreliable it is in Colorado–says that first part of November next year we’ll start to see some blue sky.
We’ve got it easy. We can just run against your nuttiness in 2008. But you’ve actually got to go to the voters with a record. You can’t run against Bush anymore and you can’t rely on a bad economy here in Colorado. You have to actually articulate whatever the hell it is you people stand for. And I’m convinced that when you do–if you do–the voters ain’t gonna like it.
‘The sun’ll come out…
Tomorrow
Tomorrow,
Bet your bottom dollar
tomorrow.
For it’s only
a
day
away!’
Happy Easter Colorado. You’ve only got another year to go before redemption day…
There are only dark clouds on the R horizon.
Don’t forget, we Dems have only been in charge for three months, state and federal.
History plods along progressively. You are on the losing side. In 1776 you would have been cheering King George III. Now you cheer King George the Moronic. Wake up.
Yeah, Go Blue! Tell ’em! I mean, your educated legal opinion carries MUCH more weight than the top law enforcement official in the state and a unanimous decision by the Justices of the State Supreme Court! Please, oh please Go Blue, won’t YOU interpret what section 10 of article VII of the Colorado Constitution says?
Am I playing the part of the Attorney General? No. But I am a citizen of this state who votes and is affected by the actions of Suthers. If you think the first amendment doesn’t apply to me because I disagree with him, you need to read the US Constitution.
From this article: “In a July 2006 opinion, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution allows the General Assembly to deny parolees the right to vote. But the decision in Danielson vs. Dennis did not say that the constitution requires the Legislature to do so…” The court did not rule it unconstitutional to allow parolees the right to vote; but rather they ruled that the constitution allows for the GA “to deny the right.” I believe Suthers is interpreting that opinion is wrong for political purposes.
I also know that Suthers has stood on the wrong side of numerous decisions that affect our state dramatically, much like that of Gonzo picking politics over the people. http://www.coloradoc…
Don’t trot out that tired rejoinder about infringing on your free speech; no one said you can’t speak your mind. I would hope, however that any argument over this provision of an otherwise innocuous bill would be based on sound legal precedent, not banal boiler plate about “motivation” and “making a difference”. Suthers isn’t saying it’s bad policy, he’s citing a specific court decision defining “full term of imprisonment” as including parole. Legislators can stand under an imaginary rainbow and talk about “reintegration” all they want, but what they CAN’T do is redefine a constitutional phrase.
Interpretation of Article VII and Section 10 have been “for those who are CONFINED in a public prison.”
Section limited to disenfranchisement while in public prison. The constitutional prohibition is limited to the disenfranchisement of persons while confined in a public prison. Sterling v. Archambault, 138 Colo. 222, 332 P.2d 994 (1958).
“The intent of this provision is to prohibit from voting only those who, at the time of an election, are confined in a public prison serving a term of imprisonment. Moore v. MacFarlane, 642 P.2d 496 (Colo. 1982)
and in Danielson v. Dennis (Colo. 2006) the Court found that the legislature did not violate current state statute, affirming that the legislature has the right to define the nature of parole by upholding current statute. Groff’s bill would define current statute, which is the purpose of the Colorado General Assembly, exclude parolees as a part of an offender’s sentence, since they are no longer CONFINED in public prison, but rather living amoung.
The court did, indeed, affirm that the legislature has the “right to define the nature of parole”. However, SB 83 does not change parole one bit. Rather than change parole — legally defining the nature of it — SB 83 only places in statute a meaning for “full term of imprisonment” which is the constitutional phrase in question. The bill does not attempt to define the nature of parole; rather it defines a phrase to the contrary of the court’s prior interpretation. This wonderful bit of lovely we have called Separation of Powers says those 100 individuals under the gold dome can’t do that.
I see the section of the bill concurring with the COSC opinions that “Confined” prisoners shall not have the right to vote, while the prison has served “his or her term of imprisonment.”
“A person who is serving a sentence of parole has not served his or her full term of imprisonment within the meaning of this constitutional provision”
Apparently the Justices would beg to differ.
that denies that parolee the right to vote.
I won’t address the legalities, cuz I know nut-tink about the same.
If you want claim to want to rehabilitate felons – the vast majority who probably have never voted in their lives, so what’s the big deal – why wouldn’t you let them vote?
It’s very symbolic of “Welcome to the world of being a citizen.”
I think it’s more important for them to have regular drug tests and a job than it is for them to have the right to vote before they have finished their sentences.
If the Dems keep pushing crappy legislation through on party-line votes, they won’t hold the majority too long.
They can “have all three.” You are merely being punitive. They’ve served their hard time.
I’m sure most felons and ex-felons could not care less about voting, but if 1% do, why not?
Why always the stick and never the carrot?
…then they haven’t finished their sentences. When they’ve finished their sentences, they should be allowed to vote. Not a minute sooner.
Felonies have consequences. Or at least they ought to.
I don’t see a huge groundswell of support for this bill among Real People. In fact most people I talk to think it’s stupid.
The Dems have been like kids in a candy store this legislative session. I think they need to get some of their more childish whims under control.
that they are still serving when on their parole.
So, why not? Let them participate in democracy while in their half way house. There is absolutely no logical reason to not permit this, only emotional and traditional.
At one time lots of people didn’t think blacks should vote, too. Sometimes politicians lead and don’t just represent.
Because committing a felony should have consequences.
Period.
More big stick, less carrot. The authoritarian, Republican way into compliance.
So they’re out on parole. Being denied the vote is a justifiable consequence of the crime? I agree with parsing, the hard time behind bars is the consequence.
The real problem with not letting people who are out of prison but still in the legal system vote is the problems you had in Florida in 2000, when a number of people who had been in prison but had their voting rights restored were ID’d as not being eligible to vote. (I’m less sure, but I think some of the people on the list had never been convicted of any crime either.) These people could not have been disenfranchised if it weren’t permissible to deny the right to vote to felons no longer behind bars.
I see allowing paroled felons the vote as a way to keep this kind of abuse from happening again. So ask yourself if this “consequence” is worth the risk of another Florida.
Isn’t nessicarily a parolee’s right to vote, it’s Go Blue’s automatic attack on Suthers. I’m open to allowing those who have served their full sentance the right to vote again, it doesn’t make sense to punish someone after they’ve served their time. Former criminals have a hard enough time becoming a productive memeber of society. Obviously, the right would be taken away if there are re-offenses, etc, but that should probably go without saying
n/t