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) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

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) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 16, 2008 04:21 AM UTC

Should I put in for Secretary of State?

  • 41 Comments
  • by: Dan Willis

(We could do worse than a “gay lumberjack” – promoted by Colorado Pols)

What started out as a flight of fancy about 48 hours ago is now a serious question.

If reports are accurate, there seems to be a notable shortage of people interested in taking Mike Coffman’s spot when he resigns, supposedly in Jan.

In light of this circumstance I have started to seriously consider throwing my name in for consideration.

I have been calling people whose opinion I value (mostly leaving messages so far), but I have come to also value the opinions expressed here, even those that do not agree with me.

So I would love to hear your honest feed back on this question.

Below the fold is what I view as my pluses and minuses for this positiion

Advantages

I have worked at the SoS’s office on three occasions as a private contractor (and for 3 different Secretaries at that). So I understand the office from an internal view point.

I currently work for the Denver County Clerk in the Elections Division. The way Colorado government is set up, the SoS and the County Clerks have a symbiotic exsistence with one another, especially in the area of elections. I view being on both sides of that equation as being beneficial to whomever fills that role.

I have a long history (15 years now) of being involved with the election process, as a campaigner, a party official, a member of election related task forces, and an election worker.

I am well versed in the policies AND procedures of the SoS’s office. I could get up to speed in very short time from.

I don’t view the SoS’s office as a stepping stone to some higher office. There really is not an elected office I would rather have.

Disadvantages

I’m not an elected official. I actually see this as only a disadvantage from a political viewpoint. From a practical viewpoint, it actually helps make the argument that I am there for the public who use the office, not for some political agenda.

When it comes time for election in 2010, I am not as well known the other names that have been mentioned previously. However, I would hope to make a name a name for myself in the next two years reforming the way the office looks at its duties. (In my book, the SoS is there to serve the public, period.).

Because elections are cyclic in nature, my paid work history is a long series of short term positions that allowed me to focus energy on elections.

Oh yeah, according to one right-wing blog, I look like a “gay lumberjack”

Tweet
Share

Comments

41 thoughts on “Should I put in for Secretary of State?”

  1. I think the answer to this should almost always be – yes, try for it. The question is not will you do a perfect job – you won’t. The question is will you do as good a job as anyone else applying and arguably you will.

    Good luck.

    1. While I’ll bet this is pretty much a political job (see Coffman: Exhibit A), it SHOULD go to someone with experience who knows what the hell he or she is doing.

      Good luck to you!

      And if the Political Gods choose elsewhere, there’s no dishonor in trying.

  2. it’s the result of a CORA request.

    You should totally do it, the worse they can do is say no.  Well, maybe point and laugh, but how long could that possibly last?  Kidding of course, you don’t seem like a super stretch to me.

    Did you get the application?  All you need is what you’ve written above and a resume.

    1. but keep in mind, Ken Gordon also said he plans to put in his application on Monday (in the same FTS report based on the CORA request). There is really no reason anyone applying would turn in an app before the deadline — no one wants to be out there with his or her application getting picked apart before the field is known.

          1. but Gordon introduced some criminal justice bills last year that stuck in Ritter’s craw.  The Gov had threatened to veto them, but IIRC the bills passed but were very watered down.

            Additionally, Gordon didn’t do a good job of managing the paper ballot election bill last year. The Gov firmly wed himself to the bill early in the session and it died too.

  3. .

    but this right wing fringe extremist would support you being appointed.

    I’m truly worried about the health of our democracy, and I consider you very partisan, but you also seem committed to undoing the vulnerability of our SAIC/ Diebold electronic voting system to vote stealing.

    .  

      1. It’s a pretty fluid situation isn’t it, including the Salazar speculation that could mean even more places to move people to and from.  

        The idea of having an SOS who has pretty much done it all and worked with everybody at the nuts and bolts level, who nobody seems to have a particular problem with and who isn’t going to have his or her eye on the next step up the ladder from day one would be a very refreshing development.

  5. You would be a good SOS, Dan.

    Your knowledge will help reform the processes.  Your experience will help bring the different sides together (clerks and voting advocates) to talk about meaningful change (instead of talking past eachother which happens now). Finally, your lack of elected experience is an advantage in my book. You can treat the office as it should be treated, as an administrative post, not a political one.

    One disadvantage in my eyes is your ties to Denver.  Too often the SOS’s office is focused on what Denver wants and not about what is good for the state.

    As far as your image, don’t worry about it.  You can clean up nicely, I’ve seen you testify before.  I would rather have a ‘gay lumberjack’ in the office instead of a pretty face who doesn’t know the job.

    Some questions to you:

    – what are some of the essential reforms you see in CO’s election process?

    – how do you feel about allowing counties to use only mail in ballots?

    – who is the best agent of change to implement necessary changes and how should that person/the group go about implementing chage?

    1. 1. The two major reforms at the SoS’s office would be rule and training. I noticed in 2008 a lot of misinformation going to voters from the SoS’s office. The people who answer the phones need to be the ones with the facts straight. Info being made public also needs to be more timely.

      Colorado has gone to great lengths in recent years to make voting very confusing for voters. I would follow the KISS princple: “Keep It Simple Stupid!” Some of this can be accomplished by re-writing the rules to be very clear and simple. The work load is heaviest for the County Clerks and simplifying their procedures will go a long way. Some of this also has to be done at the legislative level and my office would advocate for simplification all the way through the process. This includes other aspects of elections such as petitions and voter registration.

      2. Mail ballot elections are a double-edged sword.  On one hand they are cheaper to conduct and do increase participation, but there are also factors out of the control of the County Clerk: the ballot vendor and te Post Office. I am currently dreading a final report from Denver on how many ballots never made it to their destinations, or possible never left Sequoia.

      Having said all of that I feel the counties should have the mail ballot option, even in partisan election. They currently have the option in every election except the partisan ones. There needs to be some rule and law clean up though here as well pertaining especially to overseas voters and those who are out of the state at election time (affects several federal empoyees). I would not make mail elections mandatory because Colorado’s counties are not “one size fits all”. What may work well for Denver, doesn’t work at all for Custer and vice versa.

      3. There is no one person. The SoS can do a lot in terms of their procedures and rules, but the legislature has to step up and reform the statutes as well. The past few years, election bills in the legislature have been motivated or heavily influenced by special interests such as Common Cause or groups who simply don’t trust election officials to conduct an election. The legislators need to shut that noise out of their head and look at it from a purely technical and procedural viewpoint and then act to best serve the voting public. The strongest voice regarding election alws should be the County Clerks who have to do the work. Everything should be conducted in a transparent manner that is clean, secure and SIMPLE (sensing a theme here?)

      1. Agreed on #1 – Colorado’s voting rules are too complicated. We can acheive what we need through simplification.  We will still be able to protect the sanctity of voting, but without the administrative nightmare.

        The difficulty is finding a balance between HAVA and existing CO laws. The CO laws should be amended since our state is the most complicated for voting procedures (thanks Gordon!).

        Also agreed on #2, optional mail ballots only. No need for mandates. No need for massive changes.

        Finally, #3:

        The past few years, election bills in the legislature have been motivated or heavily influenced by special interests such as Common Cause or groups who simply don’t trust election officials to conduct an election. The legislators need to shut that noise out of their head…

        Buddy, you just got my vote but pissed of Flanagan!

        Good luck, I’m excited for you and although the politics are going to be silly, concentrate on what you know and you’ll do fine.

      3. You claim

        …I am there for the public who use the office, not for some political agenda.

        but then write

        The strongest voice regarding election alws should be the County Clerks who have to do the work.

        You contradict yourself to put such faith in Clerks, who can have highly partisan political agendas and can work to institute practices that are known to supress voter registration and voting. That, and Coffman’s antics, are why some of us “simply don’t trust election officials” to be left on their own.

        Certainly, Clerks have great knowledge and must carry out the elections. They have to be an essential part of reform and improvement efforts. But if you believe that citizens who have extensive knowledge of elections are “noise,” and that legislators (and perhaps the SOS?) should “shut out that noise,” please stay away from the SOS position.  

        1. people who have done the work and understand the processes and the problems currently with it should be who legislators give mroe credence to.

          Lobbyists who have never even been a election judge really are out of the depth when talking process. They are there to promote policy, their own policy.

          Yes there are partisan clerks who have agendas. However, the bottom line when discussing any legislation is what is the impact on the voter? Does it make it harder to vote? Are we creating more barriers to the ballot box for eligible people to get there?

          1. You are right, the bottom line is the impact on the voter. We noise makers have been focused on the process of reducing the barriers to the ballot box and making it easier for eligible persons to vote. That is my “policy.” The policy of Coffman and some Clerks is to make it harder. You seem to delight in “pissing off” those who are working for the goals you profess while you put your faith in some who are doing the opposite. Those do not strike me as characteristics I want in a SOS.

  6. I have spent the biggest part of morning on the phone with a lot of poeple, including my kids.

    Bottom line, I am not happy with the choices that I am now told the Governor will have. I think the next Secretary of State needs to focus all their energy on that office, cleaning up our elections, and making sure Colorado does NOT end up the punchline on Leno and Letterman riught after Florida and Ohio. Since I have no desire to go to another elected position, I can easily make that committment.

    BTW, I have confirmed that Romanoff will NOT seek the SoS position.

    2. We need more gay lumberjacks in elected offices. Sorely under represented.  Jus’ kidding, I think you know.

      Your candidacy is what makes America ever new.

    4. Go for it. I think you are a perfect fit for this job.

      One question that you may not be able to answer for confidentiality reasons–you mentioned you aren’t happy with the choice–are you able to comment as to who is on that list?

    2. Applicants: Romanoff, Beuscher, Gordon, Rodriguez, Willis, plus the Gilpin County Clerk (a Republican), and, rumor has it, Alice Madden. Could be more.

      Jamba’s postmarked application probably won’t be valid, though — had to be received by 5 p.m. Darn it all, I wanted to see what in her background she thought would embarrass Bill Ritter!

      3. …but Willis assured me that Andrew was not going to.  Dammit, I thought I could believe random comments on the internet!  I went and printed dozens of copies of my application on pink, perfumed stationary (a little something X-tra – ala Elle Woods) for nothing!  I hereby withdraw!

        RedGreen, now you’ll never know about the skeletons and other things in my closet.  I’m curious about Romanoff’s closet though…..

      1. He would be a good choice, but I’m still glad you applied.  Hopefully the hardest part of Ritter’s decision will be choosing between people that understand how the system works and would treat the office with a little respect.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

133 readers online now

Newsletter

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