U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 09, 2014 06:35 AM UTC
18 Comments
The Post is reporting that BWB is calling "ill advised" the idea of a special session to deal with local control issues. He said that the issue can be handled during the legislature's regular 180-day session. Who gets to break the news to him that they only meet for 120 days?
Why can't we have it both ways?
Teach the Controversy!
That gave me a start, Frank. I read 180 days and reflexively thought "120 days". This guy doesn't even know how long the lgislative session is and he wants to sign the laws they pass? He'd probably be sittng there all June and July wondering where everyone went.
BWB is confusing the legislative session with the Colorado school year. Not a good sign for his "governorship", I fear.
Maybe the Jeffco School Board should have named BWB the new superintendent.
The same guy who is planning to increase state revenues by lowering the state tax rate and eliminate the personal property exemption?
Canada's oil sands are a toxic, deadly mess.
We should nationalize all oil and gas in the U.S. Pay out 150% to the owners and shareholders, and pump the rest of the money into solar, wind, and other renewables. Now.
Senator Udall is on the Alex Wagner show on MSNBC right now. Talking about the fast track Dem bill to make an end run around the disastrous Hobby Lobby decision.
Wonderful news out of Brighton this afternoon. District Court Judge Scott Crabtree has granted summary judgment in the challenge to Colorado's ban on same sex marriage. Looks like the amendment is dead. Hopefully, the Boulder District Court judge will look at the written decision. General Suthers has sustained another battlefield loss in his cultural war!
Huzzah!!
He also stayed the ruling. We'll get there, but it will not be this day.
But it will be soon and, as with all those who stood against civil rights, Suthers will find himself on the wrong side of history. Although I get the feeling in Suthers' case it's not that he's burning to stop the decline of western civilization so much as that this is what a Republican AG is expected to do so he's doing it, probably knowing full well that resistance is long past futile. He's just being a GOTP team player.
Didn't Suthers file in the recent Federal case – Burns – that he agreed that the 10th Circuit ruling would make the Colorado ban unconstitutional if upheld?
He's resigned to it, but as you say, he's going through the proper GOTP Team! motions.
Who stayed the ruling, and what exactly does that mean for those of us who don't speak Legalese fluently?
The judge made a decision– marriage is for everyone (in twos, at least). The judge then stayed, or stopped in English, the enforcement of his ruling until the AG appeals to a higher court.
This isn't uncommon when the judge knows the decision will be appealed and feels that the potential harm of the ruling taking immediate effect (uncertain status if the higher court overturns) outweighs the need for immediate relief (married GLBTs).
Thanks for the clarification, Pcat.