44 thoughts on “BREAKING: Blaha Makes Ballot, Frazier Getting Recount, Everyone Yelling at Everyone Else”

1. WTF?  Does anyone have any sources more reliable than tweets from interested parties?

   Log in to Reply

   1. Public officials don't even have reliable sources today.

      Log in to Reply

      1. If someone has the case number, I could get the court opinion straight from the horse's mouth.

         Log in to Reply

         1. May 4, 2016 Blaha Order

            District Court City and County of Denver, Colorado Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street, Denver, CO 80202 Petitioners: ROBERT BLAHA and RYAN FRAZIER, v. Respondent: WAYNE W. WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as the Colorado Secretary of State. Case No. 2016CV31574 Courtroom 376 Consolidated with 2016CV31575 ORDER re: ROBERT BLAHA This matter comes before the Court on the “Verified Petition of Robert Blaha,” filed on May 2, 2016. The Court held a hearing on May 3, 2016. Michael Francisco appeared for Robert Blaha. Scott Gessler and Geoffrey Blue appeared for Co-Petitioner Ryan Frazier. LeeAnn Morrill and Matthew Grove appeared for the Respondent, the Colorado Secretary of State. At the hearing, several witnesses testified under oath, exhibits were admitted as evidence and arguments were made by counsel. The Court, having listened closely to the witnesses and assessed credibility, considered the admitted exhibits, taken into account arguments of counsel and applicable law, reviewed the case file (including the parties’ filings as well as oral and written stipulations) and being otherwise fully advised does now enter the following ruling. Facts Robert Blaha seeks the Republican Party’s nomination for United States Senator in the 2016 election. To have his name on the primary election ballot, Mr. Blaha was required by Colorado law to file a petition containing a certain number of valid signatures of registered Republican electors. Accordingly, Mr. Blaha set out to collect these signatures with the assistance of petition circulators. DATE FILED: May 4, 2016 4:56 PM CASE NUMBER: 2016CV31574 2 On April 4, 2016, Mr. Blaha submitted thousands of petition signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State (“SOS”) for an official determination that the petition signatures met Colorado law so that Mr. Blaha’s name would appear on the 2016 primary election ballot. On April 28, 2016, the SOS informed Mr. Blaha that the petition signatures he submitted were insufficient to place his name on the primary ballot. Because Section 1-4-909 allotted Mr. Blaha only five days to contest the statement of insufficiency and because Section 1-5-203(1)(a) requires the SOS to certify the final ballot by April 29, 2016, only one day after it issued a “Statement of Insufficiency” to Mr. Blaha, Mr. Blaha, along with Mr. Frazier, petitioned the district court to extend the deadline for the SOS to certify the ballot. That petition was also accompanied by a motion seeking the same relief. The Denver District Court entered an Order Staying Ballot Certification Deadline “until May 4, 2016 at 5:00 or until the stay is lifted by the Court.” See Order (4/29/16) Robert Blaha and Ryan Frazier v. Wayne Williams, Denver District Court Case No. 16CV31557 (Martinez, J.) Thereafter, Messrs. Blaha and Frazier submitted petitions protesting the SOS’s decision. Discussion “All candidates for nominations to be made at any primary election shall be placed on the primary election ballot either by certificate of designation by assembly or by petition.” § 1-4-102. The general assembly has set out some requirements for these petitions, see §§ 1-4-901 to 909, and they must then be filed with the SOS. § 1-4-907. Upon receipt of the petition, the SOS is to review it and “verify the information against the registration records.” § 1-4-908(1). The general assembly tasked the SOS with establishing guidelines for verifying such petitions, id., and it did so. See 8 CCR 1505-1 (“Election Rules”). In providing Mr. Blaha with a “Statement of Insufficiency,” the SOS appropriately reviewed the petitions submitted by Mr. Blaha, followed the applicable guidelines and then timely notified Mr. Blaha of the number of valid signatures and that the petition appeared insufficient. Colorado law allows for the candidate named in the petition to protest the SOS’s statement of insufficiency. § 1-4-909(1.5). This protest is to be made to the district court pursuant to Section 1-1-113. 3 The Election Code, Articles 1 through 13 of Title I of the Colorado Revised Statutes, is to be liberally construed. See §§ 1-1-101 and 1-1-103. “Substantial compliance” with the Code is all that is necessary. §§ 1-1-103(3) and 1-1-113(1); see Loonan v. Woodley, 882 P.2d 1380, 1385-86 (Colo. 1994) (addressing substantial compliance in the initiative and referendum process). However, it is the court which makes the determination of “substantial compliance,” not the SOS. In contesting the “Statement of Insufficiency” from the SOS, Mr. Blaha makes no claim, and indeed there was no evidence presented, that the SOS failed to follow the Election Rules in any way. Rather, Mr. Blaha argues that he has substantially complied with the Election Code. Of the ten circulators at issue, five had petitions that were rejected due to clerical date errors and five had petitions rejected due to errors in voter registration. Mr. Blaha also submitted evidence by Erica Stephens, a notary, that she did notarize petitions by three circulators without affixing her stamp on the petitions. Abundis Gilbert Abundis credibly testified that he was a circulator of petitions to nominate Mr. Blaha and that he signed all the petitions he circulated in front of a notary. The date he wrote down on those petition differs from the date reflected by the notary by one day. There was no evidence that Mr. Abundis had control over the date the notary placed on the petition and a review of Exhibit 8 reveals that Mr. Abundis signed the petition on the same date as the voters. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Mr. Blaha substantially complied with Section 1-4-905(2) with respect to the petitions circulated by Mr. Abundis. Sachs, Dazlich, Yost, and Driscoll Shaun Sachs, David Dazlich, Christopher Yost, and Brett Driscoll were all circulators for Mr. Blaha and signed notarized affidavits putting down their current permanent residential addresses. For various reasons, they all failed to update their otherwise valid voter registration with these addresses. Accepting the reasons and the time frames expressed in the Stipulated Facts, the Court finds that Mr. Blaha substantially complied with Section 1-4-905(2) with respect to the petitions circulated by Messrs. Sachs, Dazlich, Yost and Driscoll. 4 Stephens Erica Stephens notarized signatures of certain petition circulators for Mr. Blaha. On three of these petitions, she notarized the signatures, recorded it in her log book, but failed to place her notary stamp on them. The Court finds that Mr. Blaha substantially complied with Section 1-4-905(2) with respect to the petitions notarized by Ms. Stephens and recorded in her log book but rejected by the SOS because she did not affix her stamp. Because this Court has resolved these ballot questions by applying Colorado statute, the Court permits the withdrawal by Mr. Blaha of his constitutional claims. Conclusion Based on the above, the Court orders the Colorado Secretary of State to accept all of the petitions submitted by Robert Blaha which were rejected by the SOS as to (1) circulator Gilbert Abundis because the date he put down as the date of signing the petition differed from the date of the notary; (2) circulators Shaun Sachs, David Dazlich, Christopher Yost, and Brett Driscoll because the address they placed on their circulator affidavits were different from those appearing in the voter registration database; and (3) the petitions indicated above which were notarized by Erica Stephens but she failed to affix her notary stamp. If, in doing so, that increases the number of valid signatures to 1,500 or more from each of Colorado’s seven congressional districts, for a total of at least 10,500 valid signatures statewide, the Colorado Secretary of State is ordered to certify Robert Blaha to the 2016 Republican Party’s primary election ballot for United States Senator. Dated this 4th day of May 2016. SO ORDERED. ____________________________________ ELIZABETH A. STARRS Denver District Court Judge

            Log in to Reply

            1. Let me make this readable

               District Court City and County of Denver [04MAY2016]

               Petitioners: Robert Blaha and Ryan Frazier, v. Respondent: Wayne Williams, … as the Colorado Secretary of State.

               Case No. 2016CV31574

               …does now enter the following ruling.

               Facts:

               1. On April 28, 2016, the SoS informed Blaha that the petition signatures he submitted were insufficient to place his name on the primary ballot.
                  Because Section 1-4-909 allotted Blaha only five days to contest the statement of insufficiency… Blaha, along with Frazier, petitioned the court to extend the deadline for the SoS to certify the ballot.
               2. …Denver District Court entered an Order Staying Ballot Certification Deadline “until May 4, 2016 at 1700 or until the stay is lifted by the Court.” … Thereafter, Blaha and Frazier submitted petitions protesting the SoS’s decision.
               3.  Discussion “All candidates for nominations to be made at any primary election shall be placed on the primary election ballot either by certificate of designation by assembly or by petition.”
               4.  …In providing Blaha with a “Statement of Insufficiency,” the SoS appropriately reviewed the petitions submitted by Blaha, followed the applicable guidelines and then timely notified. Blaha of the number of valid signatures and that the petition appeared insufficient. Colorado law allows for the candidate named in the petition to protest the SoS’s statement of insufficiency.
               5.  “Substantial compliance” with the Code is all that is necessary.
               6.  However, it is the court which makes the determination of “substantial compliance,” not the SoS. In contesting the “Statement of Insufficiency” from the SoS, Blaha makes no claim, and indeed there was no evidence presented, that the SoS failed to follow the Election Rules in any way. Rather, Blaha argues that he has substantially complied with the Election Code. Of the ten circulators at issue, five had petitions that were rejected due to clerical date errors and five had petitions rejected due to errors in voter registration. Blaha also submitted evidence by Erica Stephens, a notary, that she did notarize petitions by three circulators without affixing her stamp on the petitions. Gilbert Abundis credibly testified that he was a circulator of petitions to nominate Blaha and that he signed all the petitions he circulated in front of a notary. The date he wrote down on those petition differs from the date reflected by the notary by one day. There was no evidence that Abundis had control over the date the notary placed on the petition and a review of Exhibit 8 reveals that Abundis signed the petition on the same date as the voters.
               7. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Blaha substantially complied with Section 1-4-905(2) with respect to the petitions circulated by Mr. Abundis.
               8. Sachs, Dazlich, Yost, and Driscoll Shaun Sachs, David Dazlich, Christopher Yost, and Brett Driscoll were all circulators for Blaha and signed notarized affidavits putting down their current permanent residential addresses. For various reasons, they all failed to update their otherwise valid voter registration with these addresses. Accepting the reasons and the time frames expressed in the Stipulated Facts, the Court finds that Blaha substantially complied with Section 1-4-905(2) with respect to the petitions circulated by Messrs. Sachs, Dazlich, Yost and Driscoll.
               9. Erica Stephens notarized signatures of certain petition circulators for Blaha. On three of these petitions, she notarized the signatures, recorded it in her log book, but failed to place her notary stamp on them. The Court finds that Blaha substantially complied with Section 1-4-905(2) with respect to the petitions notarized by Stephens and recorded in her log book but rejected by the SoS because she did not affix her stamp.
               10. …Based on the above, the Court orders the Colorado SoS to accept all of the petitions submitted by Robert Blaha which were rejected by the SoS as to (1) circulator Gilbert Abundis … (2) circulators Shaun Sachs, David Dazlich, Christopher Yost, and Brett Driscoll …and (3) the petitions indicated above which were notarized by Erica Stephens… If, in doing so, that increases the number of valid signatures to 1,500 or more from each of Colorado’s seven congressional districts, for a total of at least 10,500 valid signatures statewide, the SoS is ordered to certify Robert Blaha to the 2016 Republican Party’s primary election ballot for United States Senator.

               SO ORDERED. ELIZABETH A. STARRS Denver District Court Judge

               P.S. Lawyers suck at presentation.

               Log in to Reply

               1. Paragraphs are for wimps with time to waste.

                  😉

                  Log in to Reply

                  1. Paragraphs and bullet points are for 67.5 year old nerds suffering from pedantic overload.

                     Log in to Reply

               2. Why didn't I scroll down before plowing through the ohwilleke version. Way less brain damage.

                  Log in to Reply

         2. May 4 2016 Frazier Order

            District Court City and County of Denver, Colorado Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street, Denver, CO 80202 Petitioners: ROBERT BLAHA and RYAN FRAZIER, v. Respondent: WAYNE W. WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as the Colorado Secretary of State. Case No. 2016CV31574 Courtroom 376 Consolidated with 2016CV31575 ORDER re: RYAN FRAZIER This matter comesbefore the Court on the “Petition by Ryan Frazier Protesting Statement of Insufficiency,” filed on May 2, 2016. The Court held a hearing on May 3, 2016. Scott Gessler and Geoffrey Blue appeared for Petitioner Ryan Frazier. Michael Francisco appeared for co-Petitioner Robert Blaha. LeeAnn Morrill and MatthewGrove appeared for the Respondent, the Colorado Secretary of State. At the hearing, several witnesses testified under oath, exhibits were admitted as evidence and arguments were made by counsel.The Court, having listened closely to the witnesses and assessed credibility, considered the admitted exhibits, taken into account arguments of counsel, reviewed the case file (including the parties’ filings as well as oral and written stipulations) and applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised does now enter the following ruling. Facts Ryan Frazier seeks the Republican Party’s nomination for United States Senator in the 2016 election. To have his name on the primary election ballot, Mr. Frazier was required by Colorado law to file a petition containing a certain number of valid signatures of registered Republican electors.Accordingly, Mr. Frazier set out to collect these signatureswith the assistance of petition circulators. DATE FILED: May 4, 2016 5:13 PM CASE NUMBER: 2016CV31575 2 On April 4, 2016, Mr. Frazier submitted thousands of petition signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State (“SOS”) for an official determination that the petition signatures met Colorado law so that Mr. Frazier’s name would appear on the 2016 primary election ballot. On April 28, 2016, the SOS informed Mr. Frazier that the petition signatures he submitted were insufficient to place his name on the primary ballot. Because Section 1-4-909 allotted Mr. Frazier only five days to contest the statement of insufficiency and because Section 1-5-203(1)(a) requires the SOS to certify the final ballot by April 29, 2016, only one day after it issued a “statement of insufficiency” to Mr. Frazier, Mr. Frazier, along with Mr. Blaha, petitioned the district court to extend the deadline for the SOS to certify the ballot. That petition was also accompanied by a motion seeking the same relief. The Denver District Court entered an Order Staying Ballot Certification Deadline “until May 4, 2016 at 5:00 or until the stay is lifted by the Court.” See Order (4/29/16) RobertBlaha and Ryan Frazier v. Wayne Williams, Denver District Court Case No. 16CV31557 (Martinez, J.) Thereafter, Messrs. Blaha and Frazier submitted petitions protesting the SOS’s decision. Discussion ““All candidates for nominations to be made at any primary election shall be placed on the primary election ballot either by certificate of designation by assembly or by petition.” § 1-4-102. The general assembly has set out some requirements for these petitions, see §§ 1-4-901 to 909, and they must then be filed with the SOS. § 1-4-907. Upon receipt of the petition, the SOS is to review it and “verify the information against the registration records.” § 1-4-908(1). The general assembly tasked the SOS with establishing guidelines for verifying such petitions, id., and it did so. See 8 CCR 1505-1 (“Election Rules”). In providing Mr. Frazier with a “Statement of Insufficiency,” the SOS appropriately reviewed the petitions submitted by Mr. Frazier, followed the applicable guidelines and then timely notified Mr. Frazier of the number of valid signatures and that the petition appeared insufficient.Colorado law allows for the candidate named in the petition to protest the SOS’s statement of insufficiency. § 1-4-909(1.5). This protest is to be made to the district court pursuant to Section 1-1-113. 3 The Election Code, Articles 1 through 13 of Title I of the Colorado Revised Statutes, is to be liberally construed. See §§ 1-1-101 and 1-1-103. “Substantial compliance” with the Code is all that is necessary. §§ 1-1-103(3) and 1-1-113(1); see Loonan v. Woodley, 882 P.2d 1380, 1385-86 (Colo. 1994) (addressing substantial compliance in the initiative and referendum process). However, it is the court which makes the determination of “substantial compliance,” not the SOS. In contesting the “Statement of Insufficiency” from the SOS, Mr. Frazier makes no claim, and indeed there was no evidence presented, that the SOS failed to follow the Election Rules in any way. Rather, Mr. Frazier argues that he has substantially complied with the Election Code and the SOS should be required to accept signatures for a variety of reasons. Congressional Districts 1, 2 and 6 Mr. Frazier claims, and the SOS does not dispute, that if the petitions of Shaun Sachs are accepted as substantially compliant with the Election Code, he will qualify as a nominee for the primary election ballot in Congressional Districts 1, 2 and 6. Since the Court accepts the Stipulation of Facts as to why the address Mr. Sachs placed on the petition varies from his voter registration address, the Court finds that Mr. Frazier substantially complied with Section 1-4-905(2) in this regard. Congressional District 3 Whether Mr. Frazier submitted the requisite number of signatures from Congressional District 3 so that he may be on the 2016 primary ballot is a more difficult issue. Abundis Gilbert Abundis credibly testified that he was a circulator of petitions to nominate Mr. Blaha and that he signed all the petitions he circulated in front of a notary. The date he wrote down on those petition differs from the date reflected by the notary by one day. There was no evidence that Mr. Abundis had control over the date the notary placed on the petition and a review of Exhibit 8 reveals that Mr. Abundis signed the petition on the same date as the voters. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Mr. Frazier 4 substantially complied with Section 1-4-905(2) with respect to the petitions circulated by Mr. Abundis. Burton, Dazlich, Nieland, and Romero Nicholas Burton, David Dazlich, Dawn Nieland, and Maria Theresa Romero were all circulators for Mr. Frazier and signed notarized affidavits putting down their current permanent residential addresses. For various reasons, they all failed to update their otherwise valid voter registration with these addresses. Accepting the reasons and the time frames expressed in the Stipulated Facts, the Court finds that Mr. Frazier substantially complied with Section 1-4-905(2) with respect to the petitions circulated by Messrs. Burton and Dazlich, Ms. Nieland and Ms. Romero. Donarski Trevor Donarski notarized petitions of certain circulators for Mr. Frazier. On one petition containing 22 otherwise valid signatures, he witnessed the circulator’s signature but failed to place his notary stamp on it. Accepting the reasons and the time frames expressed in the Stipulated Facts, the Court finds that Mr. Frazier substantially complied with Section 1-4-905(2) with respect to the petition notarized by Trevor Donarski. Day James Day was a circulator for Mr. Frazier after he was no longer officially registered to vote in Colorado. He was unaware that his voter registration was cancelled on February 18, 2016 and, thereafter, proceeded to collect signatures for Mr. Frazier. He collected 45 otherwise valid signatures for Mr. Frazier in Congressional District 3 while he was not a registered elector.The SOS rejected all of Mr. Day’s petitions. The Colorado Election Code specifically requires circulators to be registered electors at the time the petition is circulated. Mr. Day was not. Although the Court accepts that Mr. Day was unaware of his voter registration being canceled, the Court finds that Mr. Frazier did not substantially comply with the Election Code with respect to Mr. Day’s petitions. 5 Multiple Signatures Mr. Frazier argues that the SOS improperly rejected signatures for voters who signed more than one petition for three reasons: (1) the plain language of the statute does not prohibit it; (2) the SOS should have followed a “first in time” rule; and (3) Colorado law prohibiting this is unconstitutional. Because the Court resolves this on the plain language of the statute, it does not address the other two contentions. Section 1-4-902 (1) states: … no petition is legal that does not contain the requisite number of names of eligible electors whose names do not appear on any other petition previously filed for the same office under this section. Because the Court finds the plain language of the statute does, in fact, prohibit this, the Court finds that the SOS was correct in rejecting multiple signatures. Conclusion Based on the above, the Court orders the Colorado Secretary of State to accept all of the petitions submitted by Ryan Frazier only as indicated above. If, in doing so, that increases the number of valid signatures to 1,500 or more from each of Colorado’s seven congressional districts, for a total of at least 10,500 valid signatures statewide, the Colorado Secretary of State is ordered to certify Ryan Frazier to the 2016 Republican Party’s primary election ballot for United States Senator. If it does not, then Ryan Frazier’s petition to be on the 2016 Republican Party’s primary election ballot for United States Senator is rejected. Dated this 4th day of May 2016. SO ORDERED. ____________________________________ ELIZABETH A. STARRS Denver District Court Judge

            Log in to Reply

         3. Someone will have to reconcile the Court orders against the Certificate of Insufficiency to determine who should and should not be on the ballot.  The extension of time to certify the ballot was until 5:30 p.m. today but clearly it may take a few more hours for the SOS to do so.

            Log in to Reply

   2. I love the fact the most reliable news from the SoS is a tweet by his spokesmodel: Lynn.

      Log in to Reply

      1. … and, that it's almost as reliable, in a "not very much" fashion, as her former reporting.  The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

         Some good news for Bartels though, no one will ever force her to retract her misreporting these days ..,

         Log in to Reply

   3. This morning's Post says both are out but their news would be from yesterday so ……?

      Log in to Reply

      1. No – it's based on an analysis of the ruling.

         Blaha's team failed to challenge enough deficiencies to make the ballot (and oh, how that has to be embarrassing…). Frazier failed in court to get enough of his petitions accepted.

         Log in to Reply

         1. And yet. See Pols latest update above. Blaha IN.

            Log in to Reply

2. I can hardly wait to see how the Republican primary voters evaluate these candidates. If they can't meet the rules, as evaluated by a Republican Secretary of State, are they ready for a real campaign?

   And if a judge can hold "substantial compliance" is enough, shouldn't the law be updated and streamlined to incorporate this precedent?

   Log in to Reply

   1. Rules are for libruls …

      Log in to Reply

      1. Hmmmm… you’d think the SOS was a Dem the way these Rs are treating him.

         Log in to Reply

3. Who is this spineless judge?

   Oh, it is District Court Judge Elizabeth Starrs

   Do the rules mean anything anymore?

   Incompetent politicians + incompetent judge = ¡Goal!

   And, don’t we have an actual printing deadline looming?

   Log in to Reply

4. Wayne Williams to Blaha!: Hey Bob, I think my back is stuck on your knife.

   

   Log in to Reply

5. It looks like the deal is (super big thanks, ohwilleke):

   Blaha: some number of petitions deemed invalid due to (a) circulators registered at addresses that they moved from; (b) a few petitions with mis-dated signatures; and (c) a few petitions the notary missed stamping but logged.

   Frazier: some number of petitions deemed invalid due to (a) circulators registered at addresses that they moved from; (b) a petition the notary missed stamping but logged; (c) a bigger oops, some petitions circulated by someone who was not registered to vote in CO (registration canceled on out-of-state move); and (d) some signature repeats from other candidates' petitions.

   The judge then directed the SoS to re-evaluate the petitions.  That's probably where Lynn botched it.  The order wasn't to certify, but to count according to the judge’s ruling and determine sufficiency.  Blaha still could have missed if there was another reason to disqualify signatures on the petitions that were allowed as substantially complying.  It sounds from the Frazier order like he needed the two he struck out on (repeats, and the unregistered circulator) to crest the hill in CO-3.

   Edit: Or Lynn made the same mistake I did. Based on this report by John Frank, it sounds like Blaha got what he asked for and was still 50 sigs shy. That would be some terrible math by his team.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Hurray for crowdsourced analysis.

      Log in to Reply

   2. Blaha!

      He's back on.  One of the issues that nicked Frazier was an unregistered circulator.  That same cat circulated petitions for Blaha!  He became unregistered (provided a bad address to his clerk) after canvassing for Blaha! and before Frazier. The original order from the judge wasn’t super clear about that.  Crazy stuff.

      Log in to Reply

6. This is even more entertaining than the stuff that happened at their state convention when they delivered all their delegates to the now-defunct Cruz campaign.

   Moddy, you need to save your party! Get Cynthia Coffman, Tom Tancredo and Becky Mizel to pay Wayne Williams a visit!

   Log in to Reply

   1. And of course the fiasco that presaged everything else: The Call coup in favor of House followed by the failed House coup, all brought to you by the very same gang who couldn't shoot straight or make up their minds plotters. Featuring extortion and all kinds of back stabbing.  

      Now another comedy of errors making the Colorado GOP look even more feckless and feather headed than they did before simply to determine which no namer is going to lose to incumbent Bennet this fall.

      Of course they'll point to Gardner as in … Oh yeah? If we're so dumb how did we win that one? They lucked into an incredibly misguided Udall campaign in a midterm election, that's how, and they're not going to get the same lucky break with the much smarter Bennet campaign in a presidential year. I've seen two ads up already, both good, and so much money behind him he can keep spitting them out from here to election day.

      It's funny how Colorado seems to be a harbinger of things to come. Our Dem come back (though it didn’t last) preceded the national Dem come back earlier this century and it looks like our recent and continuing GOP melt down was just a taste of things (namelyTrump) to come on the national level. 

      Log in to Reply

      1. "feckless and feather headed"

         Good one. I gotta remember that.

         Log in to Reply

         1. 

            Log in to Reply

   2. Frank: I'll provide a quote from the Queen, now on the throne for 54 years: "we are not amused."  I've already made a modest donation to the Bennet campaign and may give again, depending on the outcome of our R primary.

      Bennet is far better on my issues (public lands, environment, right to choose w/freedom of conscience) than what I’ve seen thus far in my party).

      Conservative Head Banger  (AC/DC Rules!)

      Log in to Reply

      1. Great. Having a self identifying conservative on board with Bennet will just add fuel to the irrational anti-Bennet fire!  For Zap and friends that's like having him endorsed by the KKK! Is this some sneaky conservative jiu jitsu? 

         Log in to Reply

         1. If I knew you, I'd be happy to provide a copy of the canceled check. So, no ju jitsu (or however it's spelled). As for the Zapp-ster, does anyone round here really care about his blatherings? He can't control himself since he's an impossible-to-rehabilitate far left scion. 

            Log in to Reply

            1. 

               Log in to Reply

         2. Kind of like when the Koch said it was open to possibly voting for HRC. I suspect the Koch was signaling disapproval of the Donald and Lyin' Ted, while at the same time, stirring the cauldron of trouble in the Party of the Donkey.

             

            Log in to Reply

7. Wow!  Get a bunch of Republicans together in a room, add responsibility to get a simple job done, and mayhem ensues!

   Log in to Reply

8. I expect the Bennet folks must have laughed themselves hoarse by now.  The more of these lumps that stumble onto the primary ballot, the better.  If Blaha's willingness to go all Night of the Long Knives on the SoS is any indication, it should be a Republican bloodbath.

   Bennet can spend the next couple months doing half gainers ala Scrooge McDuck into his vault full of campaign cash.

   Log in to Reply

9. All candidates should make the ballot – this is absurd. The SoS made mistakes big time, Blaha camp erred – 5 petition collectors who failed to update their voter registration and circulated petitions, and the silly Erica Stephens who failed to properly notarize petitions, but probably back dated and inserted those actions. As for Ryan Frazier, there are so many stupid errors from the SoS to campaigns to the Judge (yes, the Judge), just authorize him onto the ballot. This is a bad joke about campaigns, bureaucracy and a judge like Keystone Cops or Three Stooges episode. Why do we even have election laws if no one – not even the judge – understands them?

   Log in to Reply

   1. Williams didn't make any mistakes, he followed the letter of the law – as he should. It was up to a judge to determine if "oops, my bad" was enough to overrule the SoS, and apparently it was.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Exactly. Just imagine what these same Rs would be screaming about if a judge ruled the same way for Dem petitioners over exactly the same kind of mistkes.

         Log in to Reply

   2. IOKIYAR

      Log in to Reply

10. So how does the court's new order stack up against the Post's analysis that he was still short of votes in CD-3?

    Log in to Reply

    1. Frazier had two problems Blaha! didn't, and he's the one short of votes.  The circulator that worked for both of them (James Day) wasn't registered when he collected for Frazier.  The system kicked his bad registration after he worked for Blaha! but before he worked for Frazier.  The second problem was some duplicate signatures.  The new order isn't changing those determinations against Frazier, just clarifying that James Day was registered (or was reasonably believed to be) when he collected for Blaha!

       Frazier's claim that he should be allowed the signatures collected by an unregistered person and the duplicates was disallowed by the district court judge.  She has now issued a short stay so Frazier can appeal.

       Log in to Reply

       1. I was referring to the Post analysis of the ruling referred to above, which calculated that Blaha was STILL short on ballots after the ruling. Obviously the Post counts differently than the court (which, I believe, was working on agreed-to counts between SoS and the candidates).

          So where does the Post come up with a number that's still short for Blaha, and will anyone challenge his position on the ballot based on their (or similar) analysis?

          Log in to Reply

          1. Sorry I wasn't clearer.  The SoS took the judge's initial ruling to mean that signatures collected by James Day should not be counted.  He collected for both Blaha and Frazier. They got this reading the Frazier order, but applied that to both Blaha and Frazier.  This is, I believe, the 49 votes the Post and the SoS's office though Blaha was still short.

             Today the court clarified that it was only disallowing the signatures Day collected for Frazier since Day's voter registration was rejected after he canvassed for Blaha but before he canvassed for Frazier.  So Blaha is no longer short with the Day petitions counted.  Frazier is still in the hole.

             Log in to Reply

11. The Colorado GOP family is now officially disfunctional enough to warrant its own reality TV Series.  Any suggestions for a name? I'm thinking of maybe something with “Boo Boo” in it. Or “Follies”. Whose side will House be on. How about the Coffmans? Will they be on the same side or retire to separate corners in their separate zip codes? How about Mizel and Tancredo? Will there be actual back stabbings? It could be a sleeper hit.

    Log in to Reply

12. They are all on for now. I went to our county clerk office today and had her print a copy of that page of ballot

    Log in to Reply