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 27, 2007 09:33 PM UTC
20 Comments
have the power / authority to mount a direct legal challenge to this bill if adopted by the Senate or does it need to come from a Caldera / Bruce type challenge?
I think he can challenge it. There’s precedent:
http://www.ago.state…
Like the redistricting case, he can bring an original proceeding in the supreme court alleging that the statute is unconstitutional. The supreme court has relatively narrow criteria for accepting such original actions; the court usually declines to consider them. Among the criteria are the alleged urgency of a court ruling, and a good reason why the normal litigation procedure (e.g., starting in the district court) isn’t sufficient.
Also, if some private plaintiff sues the state or the Gov. on this point, and the AG agrees with the plaintiff, he can refuse to represent the state and the Gov, and then pay for them to retain private representation. (Again, this is what happpened in some of the 2003 redistricting cases.) Then, he can try to have his say as a “third party” to the lawsuit.
Owens also went around tabor when he had to borrow for T-Rex (and a number of other little stunts that he pulled). Personally, I would have voted against it had we the option. Borrowing heavily on the states future to pay for a one small section of road was foolish esp when he would not even admit that HE screwed up in the first place. In fact, it is because of that crap that he most likely lost his water vote. Voters, wisely, did not trust him.
As the republicans say, Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, well you can not be fooled twice. Can you?
Now Ritter is trying to get around tabor for his favorite item. OTH, This is one that I will vote for iff I am given the chance. Why? Because this is needed for the WHOLE state and our children. This is a cost that is paid today and helps tomorrow, vs. if we do not, the cost is paid for decades in our children.
If Ritter (and the dems ) really want to win over Coloradoans (esp in light of how they are trying hard to kill 41) for the next election, they need to push this for a vote and trust that Coloradoans will have our future in mind. After all, C got voted in. Note that D did not because it borrowed against the future (which is why Owens did not put T-Rex to a vote).
A ballot issues is not high on the list of wants among people who are pushing this unfortunate plan.
I thought most everyone, including Polis and Common Cause, supported this new law?
That will come out in the next election. Bet on it. Politicians like JFG will have to answer for all the fighting against the amendment that she did. So will a number of dems (and some republicans). But as somebody pointed out the other day, this was almost certainly opposed by republicans as well. It is just that they were allowing the dems to hang themselves with it. The compromise is a first step towards backing off 41. It will not be enough. I am guessing that we will have another amendment that will replace 41 with a better worded version of itself (hopefully without any back-doors that politicians like to leave for themselves).
But, my guess (which is no better than yours) is that, if all sides agree on the result (here, SB 210), then it will be difficult for either side to make voters care about the wrangling and jostling which preceded that result.
How many times have we been told that 175 of the 178 school districts have de-Bruced? Based on that, a TABOR vote on his proposal should be a slam-dunk. So, why wouldn’t Ritter want this to go to a vote? It would end the debate and take the issue away from Suthers. What am I missing?
he’s giving Suthers a platform. By going to a vote, he makes the issue his own and retains control. As long as anyone continues to pick away at the issue, Ritter risks losing contro, IMO.
If it goes to a vote, there could be a strong campaign against it and he loses the message. What he has now is an opportunity to control the message, even with those picking at the issue.
Would you rather deal with the Dems (and R’s) in the General Assembly, or the court of public opinion.
I don’t see any group or individual funding an opposition campaign. On the other hand, the teachers union, the PTO and the media (at least both daily papers)plus Jared Polis and Pat Stryker will generously fund and vigorously support the “yes” side. A vote would have the added benefit for Ritter of showing he has gravitas. It looks to me that he’s not confident he can make his case with the voters in spite of his often repeated “175 of 178” comment.
Many districts have de-Bruced for specific reasons, like to retain excess revenues for a period of time so they can pay down bonds.
Those de-Brucings also passed under different circumstances–the School Finance Act was driving down mill levies and people knew it. A de-Brucing was like free money. In some circumstances, to NOT de-Bruce would mean returning excess revenue to the State.
How many of those limited de-Brucings do you think would have passed under the mill-levy environment Ritter is now proposing?
It’s a totally phony argument.
I don’t mind paying a little more for education. Put it on the ballot, be honest with me about how much and why, and I’ll probably vote for it. Don’t, however, use evasive semantics and bullshit arguments to ram it down my throat.
It’s a tax increase when a Democrat proposes it — but not when anti-tax maven Sen. John Andrews proposed doing the EXACT SAME THING three years ago?
http://www.denverpos…
I can’t believe they’re going through with this hypocritical bullshit. I can’t believe Suthers is stupid enough to help them. How can they be getting away with this?!
Just ask Alexander Hamilton.
With the current political climate, I’m surprised duels haven’t made a comeback!
Hmm. The first thing I notice, when determining how seriously to take this memo, is the many uses of language with deliberate rhetorical content — most notably “tax burden”. Conclusion: since this disagrees with a consensus of multiple past opinions, including those of the non-partisan office of legislative legal services, it’s probably this memo that’s wrong; and deliberately so.