Twitter Good Way for Reporters to Note Who’s Not Talking

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

The Denver Post's Allison Sherry set a good example for her fellow journalists today by usng Twitter to tell us who isn't talking to her.

. @RepMikeCoffman refuses to answer in person questions on the CR, says will only talk about funding federal govt 'in writing' #copolitics

— Allison Sherry (@allisonsherry) September 18, 2013

It's a great use of Twitter, in part because it allows the dwindling numbers of political journalists to know how they might be able to act collectively to get info from hiding politicians, who often choose to grant interviews to some reporters while ignoring others.

A public-minded reporter, lucky enough to have access to Coffman (or any bunkered pol), might see a tweet like Sherry's and step up with questions. Reporters at different outlets are still competitors, for sure, but these days you see them taking more collective action for the greater good.

It's obviously easier and easier for pubic officials to avoid journalists, as their ranks and audience declines. Tweeting the media-avoidance habits of politicians on a regular basis is a good response to a bad situation.

View the original article here

Reporters should keep an eye on CO Springs elections chief Williams in the wake of his attack on candidate Morse

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

In the wake of El Paso Country Clerk Wayne Williams' criticism last week of State Sen. John Morse, reporters should gain assurances from Williams that he'll run a fair recall election in Colorado Springs.

On KFKA radio Aug. 29, Williams said it was "ironic given Bloomberg’s contributions yesterday" that Morse urged citizens to reject, as Morse wrote previously, "out-of-state billionaire and extremists who are wasting $150,000 of our tax money" on the recall election."

It's a surprising to hear Williams toss out partisan criticism because county clerks have a tradition of not taking sides in elections they're running. It looks bad.

Williams is a well-known Republican, but it still looks bad.

And it should have raised the eyebrow of KFKA's Devon Lentz, who was interviewing Williams on her and Tom Lucero's AM Colorado morning show.

Lentz should have asked Williams point-blank: "Wayne, we may be friendly, but I have to ask if you think it's appropriate for you to be attacking Sen. Morse, given that you're in charge of the election? So I'm wondering, why voters should trust you to run a fair election."

It's a question Colorado Springs reporters might pick up and run with, as well. And at a minimum, reporters should keep an eye on Williams and see if they detect any signs of favoritism toward Republican challenger Bernie Herpin.

Lentz: Wayne, do you by any chance have senator Morse’s response to the recall that you can share with us? I haven’t seen that.

Williams: Sure! I’ve got it right here, cuz it’s part of the ballot and I’ve got the sample ballot up in front of me….So, John Morse [preparing to read response from ballot] It’s kind of ironic. 'Vote ‘no’ on the out-of-state billionaires and extremists who are wasting $150,000 of our tax money—' I say ‘ironic’ given Bloomberg’s contributions yesterday—"and spending millions on a negative campaign to recall your twice-elected senator John Morse… [BigMedia emphasis]

Listen to Wayne Williams attacks Morse on AM Colorado 8.29.13 @4:30.

View the original article here

Reporters shouldn’t spread Gessler’s misinformation that 2013 election law set deadline in recall elections

(Read this - Promoted by Colorado Pols)

What led to the latest court ruling in two recall elections in southern Colorado is an apparent conflict between Colorado's Constitution, which gives recall candidates 15 days to qualify for the election ballot after the election date is set, and Colorado law, which gives them 10 days.

But it wasn't Colorado's new election modernization law (HB13-1303) that set the 10-day deadline.

It was actually a 2012 law, sponsored by Republican Keith King and Democrat Nancy Todd. It set the 10-day window.

Here's the relevant portion of HB12-1293 that's now on the books:

1-12-117. Nomination of successor. (1) FOR PARTISAN ELECTIONS, a candidate to succeed the officer sought to be recalled shall meet the qualifications of a party candidate or an unaffiliated candidate as provided in part 8 of article 4 of this title and shall be nominated by a political party petition or an unaffiliated petition as provided in part 9 of article 4 of this title. Nomination petitions MAY BE CIRCULATED BEGINNING THE FIRST DATE ON WHICH A PROTEST MAY BE FILED and affidavits of intent to run as a write-in candidate shall be filed no later than fifteen TEN CALENDAR days after the date on which the appropriate governing body convenes and DESIGNATED ELECTION OFFICIAL sets the election date AS PROVIDED IN SECTION1-12-111.

The Denver Post got it wrong in a Spot blog post yesterday, reporting that the new election law set the 10-day limit, and the Associated Press made the same implication in a story yesterday.

If it weren’t for the 2013 election law, county clerks would have been able to choose not to run an all-mail-in-ballot recall election, because the law mandates all-mail voting.

But they still would have had to rely on the 10-day deadline for permanent vote-by-mail voters and for absentee and overseas ballots, including ballots for military personnel. So the statutory conflict with the state constitution would have come up anyway.

In fact the problem would have arose had a recall election occurred anytime since Colorado started using mail ballots in the 1990's as ColoradoPols has pointed out yesterday, citing former GOP Secretary of State Donetta Davidson.

I can't blame reporters for being confused, however, when you have the State's top election official, Scott Gessler, spreading false information about this topic and promoting himself in the process.

On KOA's Mike Rosen show Aug. 13, Secretary of State Scott Gessler held up himself as white knight who tried to fix the 10-day-deadline problem in the election modernization bill, even though the new law isn't the cause of the problem. Listen to Gessler here @4 minutes into the recording.

Rosen: "A judge ruled that a provision of the state Constitution, that apparently only applies to a recall election, says that you only have 15 days prior to the election to turn in enough signatures to get your candidate's name on the ballot. And the lawsuit brought by the Libertarians says instead they were given only 10 days after the Governor set the election date…It's a little confusing, since the Constitution conflicts with election-reform legislation passed in the last session. Now it all lands back in Secretary of State Scott Gessler's lap… I gave a brief summary. Put some more details on it. "

Gessler: "Well, your summary is pretty accurate. We had tried to harmonize the statute and the Constitution. Ironically, I was very much opposed to the legislation that went through last year but found myself in the position where I had to defend it…."

Rosen: "How about the conflict between what the state Constitution says, that apparently applies only to recall elections, and what was in the new legislation passed this year?"

Gessler: "Well, the judge held that it was a conflict. We had tried to harmonize it, but it is what it is. So our approach is, you know, we've got to make this work.

Rosen should have Gessler back on his show to explain that the 2013 election-monderization law did not lead to the latest court ruling in the recall elections, and media outlets who published misleading articles should clarify.

View the original article here