Pueblo Clerk Gilbert "Bo" Ortiz said that after the judge's ruling, county employees began mailing ballots to 64 inactive military voters Friday afternoon and would send ballots to the other the other 17,000 inactive voters in the county next week. That's when Ortiz is mailing out all 82,000 ballots he's ordered for the Nov. 1 election.
"From the beginning, we thought that providing ballots to our inactive voters was the bare minimum of our obligation," Ortiz said after the judge refused to grant Gessler an injunction against Denver and Pueblo counties. "I don't know where this leaves the other (58 counties, which will mail) that had decided not to send ballots to inactive voters, but we're going to be working now to get all our ballots out on schedule." [Pols emphasis]
-----
UPDATE #2: Just in via Twitter from Sara Burnett of the Denver paper--Pueblo County Clerk Gilbert Ortiz will mail ballots to inactive voters in that county as well, mail ballots to overseas/deployed military will go out "immediately." -----
UPDATE: Denver District Judge Brian Whitney DENIES preliminary injuction sought by Gessler against Denver, inactive voter ballot delivery permitted. Case to proceed on merits. Developing.
-----
As the Pueblo Chieftain'sPeter Roperreports:
Like a fistfight in the street, the judicial showdown between Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler and two county clerks - Pueblo County's Gilbert "Bo" Ortiz and Denver Clerk Debra Johnson - is starting to draw a crowd as both sides head for a court hearing today in Denver.
Denver District Judge Brian Whitney is scheduled to hear Gessler's request for an injunction against Denver County at 1 p.m. today. Ortiz will be there, along with Pueblo County Attorney Dan Kogovsek, hoping Whitney will accept their filing to be included in the courtroom fight.
The dispute pits Gessler, a Republican, against Ortiz and Johnson, both Democrats, over the issue of whether the clerks can send mail ballots to inactive voters in those counties...
Like Johnson, Ortiz has argued, with the advice of Pueblo County Attorney Dan Kogovsek, that inactive voters are still entitled to receive ballots, regardless of their response to postcards or other notices.
Ortiz sharpened the confrontation last week by challenging Gessler on the question of inactive military voters.
Yesterday, Denver advocacy groups Mi Familia Vota Education Fund and the Urban League of Metropolitan Denver filed an amicus brief in support of Denver Clerk Debra Johnson:
This brief will establish that the Secretary's actions are contrary to Colorado law because they unnecessarily and improperly restrict voter participation and potentially disenfranchise eligible electors. Further, because the Secretary's Order to the Clerk has a disproportionate impact on eligible Hispanic and African-American electors and denies them the opportunity "to be permitted to vote" under Colo. Rev. Stat. ยง 1-1-103(1), it should be found void ab initio.
Courtesy Colorado Common Cause, here are links to many of the principal documents and press releases related to the case--a lot of which you already know about, forming the basis of coverage of the story over the past couple of weeks. Here they are in one spot for reference:
Excerpt from a press release from VoteVets.org a short while ago, opening a new front in the battle over mailing ballots to registered voters in Colorado marked "inactive" due to failure to vote in 2010--against a county clerk not involved in litigation, for withholding ballots from "inactive" military voters. As you know, that's the status quo in most Colorado counties this year:
VETERANS SLAM EL PASO COUNTY CLERK'S DECISION ON BALLOT ACCESS FOR MILITARY MEMBERS
Colorado Springs, CO - A veterans group is today strongly condemning El Paso County Clerk Wayne Williams' decision to not send nearly 1000 election ballots to military members, despite the fact that his county has one of the highest military populations in the country.
Williams has held steadfast in his decision. The Denver District court is hearing a case that could very well strike down a recent order from the Secretary of State to not send ballots to many registered voters. Yet, Williams has shown no willingness to change his mind on who receives ballots, no matter what the court decides. Recently, he told The Pueblo Chieftain that sending ballots wasn't "cost effective," because some ballots in the past have not been used by those who received them.
"It's not Wayne Williams' job to estimate which members of our military will or will not likely vote in the upcoming election," said Richard Allen Smith, Vice Chairman of VoteVets.org, and an Afghanistan Veteran and Denver resident. "It's his job to ensure our troops are given every opportunity to vote. His choice to not send ballots to hundreds of our troops, legally registered to vote in his county, is outrageous. Clerk Williams likes to site the cost of sending out ballots to our troops as a reason to not send them. Those of us who served in war would like to remind him that we've paid a much higher cost to protect that right to vote."
El Paso Clerk Wayne Williams has been a reliable defender of Secretary of State Scott Gessler over more than this issue--you'll recall that Gessler turned to Williams for backup after his push to "examine" the voter rolls for an unknown and dubious number of "illegal" voters met with pushback in the legislature. Williams told the Pueblo Chieftain recently that the rate of return for ballots in El Paso County mailed to "inactive" voters was very low, on the order of "1 in 1000"--a figure dismissed as absurdly, probably mendaciously low by just about everyone we've talked to.
So Williams can now share in Gessler's soldier vote suppression glory! The shock value makes you famous, but we wouldn't recommend this to politicians with, you know, career aspirations.
There seems to be some squeamishness about asking the next logical question here, folks. There are 64 counties in the state of Colorado, most of which are conducting all-mail elections this year, and only two of which are party (or seeking to be) to the litigation from Gessler. Who will be the next county clerk to defend denial of ballots to "inactive-failed to vote" voters?
(As we discussed in February, once he gets through Doug Lamborn it's a laudable proposal - promoted by Colorado Pols)
I may disagree with Rep. Mike Coffman about some things, but he has a lot of guts to call for Pentagon cuts, like he's been doing, especially since he represents a district near Colorado Springs.
It's a truism that most politicians who represent communities anywhere near a military facility won't suggest defense cuts, even if the cuts are unrelated to the military activities in their districts. It's one for all and all for one, even if a tiny slice of the defense budget could change the world for millions and millions of people.
Pentagon spending accounts for about half of the federal discretionary budget, which is the portion of the budget that's the focus of most beltway debate.
Current Pentagon spending is $696 billion, with $118 billion going to the Iraq and Afghan wars (our closest "enemy" China, spends about $120 billion, Russia $70 billion, Iran $7 billion).
Contrast this, if you feel like getting really depressed, with federal spending on clean energy development ($4 billion), Head Start ($8 billion), humanitarian foreign aid ($27 billion), and k-12 education ($43 billion). The entire EPA budget is about $10 billion, give or take a few billion.
"'You watch, Rush, do not doubt me,' he said to me, 'Obama is setting up riots. He is fanning the flames for riots and eventual violence. That's all he's got.' And now you look, all of this talk about millionaires and billionaires and people not paying their fair share and this relentless assault on achievement in this country has resulted in what? The appearance of a spontaneous combustion of angry white college students who are fed up with all the injustices that this country is famous for. That's his base. Occupy Wall Street is his base."
Democrat Sal Pace announced today that his campaign for congress in CD-3 raised $165,000 in the third quarter of this year. Those are strong, though not overwhelming numbers, but it's all relative depending on Rep. Scott Tipton's fundraising; Tipton brought in just $147,184 in Q2, and if he maintains that poor level of fundraising, then Pace will be in good shape.
A revealing admission in a Colorado Public Radio story today regarding the lawsuit against Denver by Secretary of State Scott Gessler to stop ballots from being mailed to "inactive" voters. CPR correspondent Ben Markus follows up on the insistence by Gessler that withholding ballots from "inactive" voters won't make a difference, since response rates are "so low" and it's so easy to "reactivate" your registration. For one thing, you can try later if the website is down.
Oddly, at least one fellow conservative seems kind of worried about something:
Reporter Ben Markus: There are 55,000 inactive voters in Denver. And Debra Johnson, the City and County's Clerk and Recorder, says they could have missed voting in the last election for any number of reasons.
Johnson: I mean, you had to work late -- overtime -- you know, I mean, you're sick. I mean, so should they have one time and not have the same ballot mailed to them?
Reporter: She thinks they should get a ballot. And Denver has mailed ballots to inactive voters in the last 5 elections...
But Victor Mitchell a former Republican State Representative, who runs SaveColoradoJobs.org says if voters have become inactive then that's [their] own fault. Mitchell's concerned that if liberal Denver's 55-thousand inactive voters get ballots in the mail, that could unfairly tip the scales in favor of Proposition 103 -- which would raise taxes for the state's schools.
Mitchell: It could have a significant impact potentially on the outcome of this. Right now the polls are neck and neck on how Prop 103 will turn out. [Pols emphasis]
What a fascinating slip! Apparently, despite the confident bluster, Proposition 103 is not the lost cause Republicans would have you believe it is! What's more, mail ballots delivered to "inactive" voters might make a difference in an election after all! That makes the idea of denying them, either in Denver or anywhere else, much more problematic to justify--unless, of course, your goal (like Victor Mitchell's unusually blunt admission) is to have fewer people voting.
After all, there's "no vote suppression" going on here, right? Either Gessler is right that this isn't about reducing the number of votes from Denver, or Mitchell is right that reducing the number of "liberal Denver" voters, thereby preventing "a significant impact," is exactly what this is about.
Criticism of the president has long been a staple of politics, but experts say lawmakers are becoming more extreme in their rebukes of the commander in chief.
White House scholars say that although every president has suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous barbs, it has not historically been members of Congress hurling them. But more lawmakers are now doing so, and that has diminished the office of the presidency, historians say...
This summer, during the debt-ceiling debate, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said he did not want to be associated with Obama.
"It is like touching a tar baby and you get it - you're stuck, and you're part of the problem now," he said.
Lamborn subsequently issued a statement saying he simply meant to refer to a sticky situation and that he had sent an apology to the president...
And how does this "hostile moment," this "mean as it's ever been" political era, reflect on the presidency, the Congress and the nation?
"It's a disturbing trend, which degrades democracy and a political process that was designed to bring out our best, not our worst," Widmer said. "By dissing the president, they are dissing the presidency. And by extension, our country. It's embarrassing."
We've been thinking lately about the difference between the types of attacks leveled against Presidents going back in our nation's history, versus the 24/7/365 onslaught of highly personal attacks from media-savvy conservatives endured by President Barack Obama since taking office in January of 2009. This story in The Hill points out some particularly nasty smear campaigns in American history, but notes correctly that the penetration of mass media has completely changed the distribution of these messages. A 24-hour internet and social media-driven news cycle has allowed a drumbeat of attacks against Obama that just wasn't possible before--witnessed by and participated in by millions instead of a tiny political class.
As the Washington Postreports, this is having very unusual, perhaps even cognitively dissonant effects--where Obama is personaly unpopular, but his actual proposals enjoy broad support.
You can't get 75 percent of people to agree to much of anything these days.
But according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 75 percent of Americans agree that millionaires should have their taxes raised. This is the crux of President Obama's tax policy and perhaps the best-known aspect of the jobs plan he has put before Congress.
But when voters are asked whether they support the president's jobs plan, support drops to 52 percent. And when they are asked who they trust more to deal with the operative issue here - taxes - Republicans have a seven-point advantage on Obama, 46 percent to 39 percent. That's actually a reversal of April, when more Americans trusted Obama (47 percent) than Republicans (42 percent) on taxes.
So if Obama's idea on taxes is so popular and Republicans are fighting against it, why have people moved towards the GOP on taxes?
It's all about branding...
Got that? 75% of Americans want the very thing Republicans are steadfastly refusing to budge on, that is raise taxes in high income households, but those same Americans say they trust Republicans more on taxes than they do Obama. If you itemize what is proposed in Obama's American Jobs Act, respondents support it overwhelmingly. But as soon as you put Obama's name on it, support plunges. You'll recall that this was the same situation with health care reform, where the provisions of the bill were popular but "Obamacare" was panned.
And then you realize it: the years-long campaign to personally alienate Obama from the American public has succeeded. It overcomes the rational arguments against it, shifting overwhelming support away from issues simply by invoking his name.
How do you deal with a situation where 75% of the public agrees with you and disagrees with your opponents, but says in the same breath they trust your opponents to deal with the issue better? How do you pass the agenda that 75% of the public says they want when the same public hands their support to people who will never give them what they want? We don't claim to have the answer to that contradiction, but when they talked above about this state of affairs being "degrading to democracy," we definitely see what they mean.
And it's not like this is a particularly good situation for Republicans, who, once you get past an historically successful personal character assassination of Obama, have totally failed to win the public over to their agenda based on these same poll results. If we don't know exactly how Obama should extricate himself from this situation, we surely don't know what Republicans would do if they achieve another victory at the polls in 2012, then face a public 75% opposed to their agenda.
But we really don't think they care right now. Today, cognitive dissonance is winning elections.
The junior Senator from Massachusetts' Ken Buck"high heels" moment? TPM:
Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) was interviewed on a local talk radio show Thursday morning. And he had an interesting response to a recent line from Democratic frontrunner Elizabeth Warren.
At a Democratic primary debate this week, Warren was asked how she paid for college - in contrast to Brown having posed nude for Cosmopolitan. "I kept my clothes on," Warren replied. "I borrowed money."
This morning, one of the hosts asked Brown: "Have you officially responded to Elizabeth Warren's comment about how she didn't take her clothes off?"
Brown began laughing lightheartedly, and gave his reply. "Thank God," he said, with more laughter...
The funny part, you see, is how women voted for Scott Brown last time. At least a few of them, superficialities being what they are, because he was a Cosmopolitan centerfold.
But they probably won't like him being an asshole about it.
Surprising millions of people living under rocks without television service (preventing them from noticing that the actual candidates started campaigning months ago), Sarah Palin has announced that she will not seek the 2012 Republican nomination for President of the United States.
The carefully wordsmithed announcement suggests that Palin will instead seek a supportive role in other Republican campaigns around the country. It also doesn't hesitate to stoke vague fears of "fundamental transformation" in the USA, nor does she neglect regressive, declinist rhetoric, carefully signing off with an exhortation to "restore this country!"
Says Palin:
After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.
UPDATE #2: FOX 31's Eli Stokols reports that Pueblo County Clerk Gilbert Ortiz has asked to join the Denver lawsuit as well, as a defendant, to "defend military voters."
Ortiz, who reluctantly complied with Gessler's order last week not to mail ballots to inactive voters who are members of the military deployed overseas, but stated he was considering taking legal action.
On Wednesday, he followed through on that promise, joining Denver as a defendant in a lawsuit that's receiving national attention.
Calling Gessler's stance "an overly restrictive interpretation of state law," Ortiz announced that he has filed a motion to join Denver Clerk Debra Johnson as a defendant in the lawsuit.
"I believe that these military voters need to be defended in this court ruling," Ortiz said. "Pueblo County voters who are on active duty overseas and are inactive have not received their ballots for the Nov. 1 election because of Secretary of State Gessler's order," Ortiz continued.
Gessler fired back.
"Ortiz is clearly fanning the political flames and covering up his own problems," Gessler said in a statement. "His personal attacks are misplaced. He should understand that the legislature makes the law, and I merely enforce it."
-----
UPDATE:Colorado Common Cause announced today that they are filing to intervene in Scott Gessler's lawsuit against Denver. Says Executive Director Jenny Flanagan, full release text after the jump, "Denver is doing the right thing and Scott Gessler should not be able to stop Clerk Debra Johnson from sending ballots to legally registered voters."
-----
Truly must-see TV, from last night's Rachel Maddow Showon MSNBC:
The key moment in Maddow's detailed examination last night of Secretary of State Scott Gessler'slawsuit to stop Denver from mailing ballots to voters marked "inactive," due to having missed the 2010 general election, comes 2:40 into the clip.
These two maps of Denver show the distribution of registered voters marked "inactive failed to vote" in the voter registration database (left, areas darker brown), compared to the areas of the city with a higher percentage of minority residents (right, areas in orange). This is, in our view, perhaps the most compelling and simple argument against Gessler's actions that has yet been made--it's stunningly easy to see which voters will be affected by Gessler's order if it prevails.
This kind of report makes it increasingly difficult to give Scott Gessler the benefit of the doubt. Objectively tougher to conclude that Gessler is not targeting urban, minority populations in Denver for vote suppression, on a scale and with a degree of precision that the state of Colorado has possibly never before seen in its history. There is no question that Gessler is aware of this demographic convergence of "inactive" and minority voters--it's his job to be aware.
In a situation with consequences this stark--over 50,000 "inactive" voters in Denver, 1.2 million across the state of Colorado--and with consequences to federally protected minority populations so plainly disproportionate, can the Justice Departmentnot intervene?
The second half of Maddow's feature on Gessler after the jump--an interview with Denver County Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson, explaining further her position and Denver's experience from sending these ballots without incident for the last five elections.
(Rep. Crisanta Duran represents Colorado House District 5 - promoted by Colorado Pols)
Playing the race card?
Secretary of State Scott Gessler recently stated that he was "disappointed that some have played the race card" in response to his decision to sue Denver's Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson for mailing ballots to legally registered voters who missed the election.
During last spring's municipal election, then-Clerk & Recorder Stephanie O'Malley sent ballots to similarly registered voters. It's these registered voters - deemed inactive because they missed ONE recent general election - that Gessler now demands are ineligible to receive a mail-in ballot.
Recently-elected Clerk & Recorder Debra Johnson's office mapped the inactive voters. The maps visually demonstrate that the inactive voters are in predominately African American neighborhoods of Montbello, Green Valley Ranch, North Park Hill and heavily Hispanic neighborhoods in west Denver.
It is simply a fact that the lawsuit would impact minorities at a higher rate than anyone else. That is the reality of the situation - not a "card" that has been played.
It is outrageous to accuse those who raise the fact that Gessler's actions will disproportionately affect people of color as having less than legitimate motivations.
This is not about politics; it's about the numbers. And the math doesn't lie.
"Representative Cory Gardner's career in Congress is propped up by the most radical interests in the country who profit off business with the Iranian regime known for their sponsorship of terrorism and calls of 'death to America,'" Jesse Ferguson of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said in a statement sent to Colorado media outlets. "These are the same controversial Koch brothers who bankroll right-wing candidates like Representative Cory Gardner and are pushing an extreme ideological agenda that hurts the middle class and seniors while protecting their own tax break for Big Oil. Will Representative Cory Gardner continue to welcome the support from Koch Industries in light of the new investigation showing the companies profited by doing businesses with state sponsors of terrorism or is he finally ready to start rejecting it?"
Rachel Boxer, spokeswoman for Gardner, told The Colorado Independent on Tuesday morning that her office would review the DCCC statement and formulate a response. She did not return messages left for her later in the day...
What many people don't know is how the Kochs' anti-regulation political ideology has influenced the way they conduct business.
A Bloomberg Markets investigation has found that Koch Industries -- in addition to being involved in improper payments to win business in Africa, India and the Middle East -- has sold millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism.
Internal company documents show that the company made those sales through foreign subsidiaries, thwarting a U.S. trade ban...
We're pretty sure that if you could tie a Democratic campaign donor, particularly one responsible for such a large amount of money donated to candidates like the Koch brothers and Cory Gardner, to profits earned illegally doing business with Iran, there would be a massive outcry on the right of high treason. But when it's the multibillionaire Koch brothers doing it, the Koch brothers who assemble the top Republican donors and public officials together in secret twice a year to warn them of a "battle for America's survival" against Barack Obama...while apparently doing business with an enemy in violation of sanctions...
Well, folks? Can you explain why this isn't on the front page of The Denver Post? With a list of everybody the Koch brothers have given money to in this state? If mainstream media seriously doesn't think Gardner's reaction to one of his largest campaign donors doing business with a state sponsor of terrorism is a story, a head-spinning double standard is at work.
You've already read about it, a typical gleeful spin job from the right-leaning Daily Caller:
President Barack Obama's "green jobs" initiatives suffered another major blow late Monday, as the nonprofit National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado, announced a plan to lay off roughly 10 percent of its staff through a voluntary buy-out plan.
According to the Denver Post, the lab plans to eliminate between 100 and 150 of its 1,350 jobs. The Obama administration supported the NREL in 2009 with roughly $200 million in stimulus grants. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu visited Golden in May 2009 to promote the NREL as a beneficiary of those funds...
NREL spokesman Bob Noun blames Congress for the organization's failures. The Denver Post reports that he believes the gridlocked U.S. Congress forced the NREL to find $8 million in new budgetary savings.
"We don't see any budget scenario where the lab doesn't face budget cuts," Noun said. "We just want to be proactive in managing the budget so we continue our core mission."
Amy Oliver of Colorado's conservative Independence Institute said one way to look at these potential "green jobs" shortcomings is that the NREL is exaggerating its claims...
The fact is, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's staff began to grow rapidly in 2007--that is, well before President Barack Obama and "teh stimulus"--and the reason NREL is buying out about 10% of their employees is their projection that the federal government won't be able to pay them. A Congress itching to disparage renewable energy investment, and unable to pass actual budgets, isn't going to be able to fund NREL at a level to sustain their current workforce.
We shouldn't have to point out that NREL is not the only federal line-item being cut.
But backers of the nation's premiere renewable energy research facility--and the thousands of jobs directly and indirectly attributable to its existence--will be pleased to know that NREL's representative in Congress, Ed Perlmutter, is having none of it. His statement today:
"Over the last 270 days, Washington Republicans' sole achievement is to ensure job reductions -- not encourage job creation. [Pols emphasis] They want to to import oil and export jobs, and that is the wrong way to grow our economy and reduce our debt. Their reckless action of passing budgets six weeks at a time means NREL is forced to offer voluntary staff reductions at a time when we need to invest more in their innovative work to ensure our national economic security and energy independence. My number one priority is to get people back to work here in our country, because that's the best thing we can do to pay our debt and move forward toward economic stability. We will continue to fight to build and maintain good jobs at NREL and the more than 5,500 private and public sector jobs dependent upon the work and products from NREL employees."
It's a bit of a whiplash to see Republicans, who have been trying to cut NREL's budget for years (witness Doug Lamborn's recent ill-fated attempt), to now place blame on NREL, and by extension the Obama administration, for Republicans getting their way enough to force these job cuts. We assume that the Solyndra bankruptcy stuff has emboldened them some way: after all, even Lamborn blinked when the damage was represented to him in terms of job losses.
I was very pleased to open my mail today to find this letter from Senator Mark Udall. I am confident puppy-owner Senator Bennet will also be on board with this bill (even though a certain loyal reader will say he was only on board with it after Senator Udall was - you know who you are). I wish the bill did not specifically identify breeders who sell more than 50 puppies per year -- it seems to me the unlucky puppies born to backyard breeders selling 49 puppies each year deserve the same protections, but I am happy to have any improvement in the situation.
Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler and his staff dismissed speculation from Democratic groups that technical problems Monday on the state's voter registration website were intentional...
"There were some intermittent issues, but we got to it as quickly as we could," said Rich Coolidge, Gessler's spokesman. "We monitor it really closesly, especially on a day ilke yesterday. It was the heavy volume on the site that caused any slowing issues."
Some Democrats, however, aren't giving Gessler the benefit of the doubt in light of what they call his "war on voting", a looming legal battle over whether inactive voters should receive mail ballots.
-----
TUESDAY UPDATE: No official word yet on how widespread this problem may have been -- and how many people were possibly affected.
-----
We have received multiple, and by that we mean a substantial number, of reports of intermittent technical problems at the official voter registration website for the state of Colorado, GoVoteColorado.com--as well as at least one confirmed error of our own (above). There seems to be trouble off and on with loading any of the new registration or update functions on the site, as well as filled-out form pages suddenly returning an error message like the one above. As you know, today is the deadline to register to vote for this year's statewide election. It's worth noting that we received our first report of a problem accessing the website last Thursday.
We're certainly not making any accusations; it's important to head that off given that this website is administered by the office of Secretary of State Scott Gessler. Who is, somebody is going to say it if we don't, more or less continuously mired in, well, scandal. The mind goes where it will.
But presuming good faith, we know that Mr. Gessler will make finding out what the hell is wrong with the voter registration website on the last day to register his very top priority.
"Pro-family" conservative group National Organization For Marriage welcomes Caspian Julius, son of Rep. Jared Polis and Marlon Reis, into the world via Twitter yesterday.
That's not quite what he said, of course, and we're pretty sure Rep. Polis will do just fine bringing up Caspian in his Modern Family. A simple "Mazel tov" would have sufficed, or maybe the rule your mother taught you to follow when you have nothing nice to say.
When the story first broke about Secretary of State Scott Gessler's lawsuit to prevent Denver from mailing ballots to registered voters marked "inactive failed to vote," the possibility of a legislative remedy was immediately raised--the situation, after all, was created by the expiration of a temporary requirement that these voters receive ballots passed by the legislature in 2008.
Gessler responded that in his view, no legislative fix was necessary--as has been amply demonstrated over the past two weeks, Gessler is completely fine with an estimated 1.2 million registered voters in the state of Colorado not receiving ballots this year.
Well, as you can imagine, that's not sitting well in a lot of places, and as the Fort Collins Coloradoan'sKevin Dugganreports, at least one Colorado municipality is taking matters into their own hands to the extent their authority permits them to:
Fort Collins voters who don't participate in some elections would still automatically receive mail-in ballots for city elections under an ordinance headed to the City Council.
The proposed amendment to the city code would direct the city clerk to send mail-in ballots for municipal elections to registered voters even though they may be considered "inactive" under state law because they did not vote in the previous general election. [Pols emphasis]
The ordinance states that ballots would be sent to registered voters who participated in the last presidential election rather than the general election, which is conducted every two years.
In today's Durango Herald, an editorial, while being extremely deferential to Gessler in presuming his good intentions, basically calls for him to stop everything he is doing:
First, mandate that ineligible voters receive ballots this year. If that's an error, at least it's an error in the right direction. [Pols emphasis] Give the largest number of voters possible an opportunity to participate in the electoral process while everyone tries to straighten out this mess.
Second, the Legislature needs to revisit the question. This year's bill ending the requirement that ballots be sent to ineligible voters but not prohibiting that distribution is a recipe for confusion and unfairness. Someone - be it Gessler, who is the state's election chief, or the legislative branch of state government - needs to step up and take responsibility for crafting a system that will best serve the largest number of eligible Colorado voters.
Third, voters should circumvent the entire argument. If you were registered to vote in Colorado in 2010 but didn't, go to govotecolorado.gov to update your status. Do it quickly, before the third week in October. If you're not sure of your status, log on to check. It's easy, and it puts voters in control.
We assume they meant to say "inactive" where they said "ineligible voters." In any event, it's quite significant that they are calling for these ballots to be distributed to voters across the state this year, regardless of their "active" status--they're talking about a lot more than Denver and Pueblo now. They're talking about La Plata County. And all the other counties.
All told, we do believe a statewide fix for this is on the way, whether it's a court order sooner (which would seem to be the only way for the Herald to get its way) or legislation next January. Either way, we feel pretty confident asserting it now, the solution will not be Gessler's remedy of withholding ballots from registered voters.
(Down the rabbit hole goes Gessler - promoted by Colorado Pols)
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler has been denying that partisanship played any role in his decision to file a lawsuit to stop Denver from mailing election ballots to inactive voters, who last voted in the 2008 general election.
Gessler's latest public denial of partisan-taint came on KHOW's Caplis and Silverman Show last week, in response to a direct question from Silverman at 33 minutes in the podcast Sept. 28 show, 5 p.m. hour:
Silverman: Isn't this just partisan on your part? Isn't it because you're thinking this will favor the Democrats?
Gessler: Absolutely not. Denver can't do what it wants to do. It can do what it wants to do in a municipal election.
But in October, as he was running for office, Gessler said on a radio show that the large number of Democratic voters on the inactive voter lists concerned him, specifically because more Democrats than Republicans were on the inactive voter lists.
In fact, it concerned him so much that he implied that election officials in Democratic counties, which would include Denver, were managing their inactive voter lists in such a way as to favor the Democratic Party.
Gessler framed the issue in partisan terms, saying at the time that in counties with large numbers of Democrats, election officials are slow to clean up their lists of inactive voters.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has decided not to run for president in 2012, according to an source informed of his thinking.
Christie has called a 1 pm press conference in Trenton to announce the decision. He acknowledged in recent days that he was reconsidering his repeated refusals in the past to take a pass on the race. But, Christie was also quite open about his doubts about his readiness for the race and the challenges inherent in starting so late in the presidential process.
Congress may be taking up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement soon. I don't know a lot about it, so I am putting this question out to knowledgeable readers on Colorado Pols. What's your take?
My gut tells me this agreement would be a disaster. Reports of between dozens (from Wikipedia who sourced Congressional hearing numbers) to thousands (reported by labor groups) of workers trying to organize there have been murdered. My understanding is the US industry most wanting to have this FTA is the beef industry -- an industry that is responsible for enormous environmental devestation, and should be regulated, curtailed and discouraged more, not less. (The beef and pork industries are huge and powerful, and their products kill people -- but that is another diary.) Historically, Republicans have favored this proposed agreement and Democrats have been against it, citing concerns over human rights violations in Colombia.
A friend just sent me this link from the Presbyterian church, which argues that such an agreement would add to the problem of extreme poverty in Colombia.
According to this website, the President supports the Colombia Free Trade Agreement because he believes it will create jobs. I respect, admire, and honor the President, and intend to work hard toward his re-election, but on this note, he may be wrong, IMHO. I want to know if I am missing something before I voice my own opinion on this matter to my elected officials. Is there a compelling and responsible reason some Democrats might be reconsidering this bill? Dialogue here may help to educate all of us a little. Thank you.
The Bell Policy Center has released a study on existing research on paid-sick-leave laws. Bell researchers reviewed a range of studies and reports as well as data from San Francisco and Washington, D.C., the two cities with the most experience with such laws.
Key findings concerning public health include:
โข More than four in 10 private-sector workers in Denver lack paid sick leave. The total number is approximately 107,000.
โข Workers who lack paid sick leave are more likely to come to work sick, send their children to school while sick, recover more slowly from illnesses, and rely on expensive visits to emergency rooms than are workers with sick leave. The net effects are higher rates of infection and increased health care costs.
โข During the H1N1 pandemic in 2009, despite the strong advice from health officials that infected people should stay home, up to 8 million Americans still went to work while infected. That meant 8 million more people were helping to spread a serious disease.
