Who Will Replace Hudak in State Senate?

FRIDAY UPDATE: Kurtis Lee of the Denver Post reports that Rep. Tracy Kraft-Tharp will not seek appointment to the SD-19 seat vacated by Sen. Evie Hudak. Rep. Kraft-Tharpe reportedly endorses former Rep. Sara Gagliardi.

—–

Democrat Evie Hudak's resignation from the State Senate on Wednesday effectively ended the attempted recall in SD-19, but it still leaves Democrats with a significant election battle in 2014.

Rep. Tracy Kraft-Tharp

Hudak was re-elected to the State Senate in 2012 by a slim margin over Republican Lang Sias, which meant Democrats wouldn't need to think about the seat again until 2016. With Hudak's resignation on Wednesday, Democrats don't have to worry that a recall election might swing control of the Senate into Republican hands for the 2014 session, but they still have to think about maintaining a majority into 2015. Democrats will fill Hudak's seat through a vacancy committee, but whoever wins the appointment will have to run for a full term next year.

Democrats have represented SD-19 for the last decade, with Sue Windels serving two terms prior to Hudak's 2008 victory, but the district has not been an easy seat to hold. With the 2014 election right around the corner, Democrats have a critical decision to make when the vacancy committee convenes.

Former Rep. Sara Gagliardi

There is certainly time for other candidates to emerge, but as of now, it looks like a potential three-way race among Rep. Tracy Kraft-Tharp, former Rep. Sara Gagliardi, and Arvada City Council member (and a former campaign manager for Hudak in 2012) Rachel Zenzinger.

All three candidates will have their share of supporters, all three have strong credentials, and all three can make a good case for why they should get the appointment. But from a purely strategic perspective — we're not going to get into any potential policy arguments here — one makes more sense than the other two. Here's why:

Rep. Kraft-Tharp could make the case that she is the logical heir to the SD-19 seat after her 2012 victory in HD-29, but she wouldn't likely have had a free run to the Democratic nomination in 2016 (Zenzinger was planning to run for SD-19 regardless of Kraft-Tharp's intentions). The strategic problem with nominating Kraft-Tharp to succeed Hudak is that it leaves two Democratic seats without an incumbent in 2014. While it's true that control of the Senate is going to be more difficult for Democrats to maintain than control of the State House, it would be tough for Democrats to give up Kraft-Tharp's incumbent advantage in HD-29. Kraft-Tharp has been a strong campaigner in HD-29, but she's not so well-known that she would have a significant edge over a Republican opponent in SD-19; it's a bigger advantage for Democrats if Kraft-Tharp runs for re-election in HD-29 instead.

Rachel Zenzinger

Gagliardi is a popular Democrat who served two terms in HD-27 (which was redrawn in the last round of redistricting) before losing her re-election bid to Republican Libby Szabo in 2010. As a nurse with strong ties to organized labor (SEIU), Gagliardi will likely have support from key Democratic allies in a vacancy committee, and she certainly has the experience and credibility to make a good argument for the appointment. The problem with nominating Gagliardi isn't about her — it's about the narrative it feeds into. The 2014 election will be spun by Republicans as a validation of the recall process (fairly or not), and that narrative is strengthened if Democrats appoint someone who was recently defeated at the polls by another Republican; it makes it easier for the GOP to say that Democrats are only paying attention to Democratic voters. It may not be fair to Gagliardi, but Democrats need to consider the reality of the situation as they try to retain SD-19 next November.

Barring any unforseen circumstances, that leaves Zenzinger as the most logical choice from a purely strategic perspective. Zenzinger was just re-elected to her Arvada city council seat without opposition, and that non-partisan position gives her the best opportunity of the three candidates to create her own narrative in 2014. As a campaign manager for Hudak in 2012, Zenzinger is also plenty familiar with the politics at play in SD-19. Zenzinger's name ID won't be quite as strong as that of Kraft-Tharp or Gagliardi, but given the recent dynamics surrounding the recall, that might actually be an advantage. And while it's true that Republicans may try to use Zenzinger's ties to Hudak to say that she will be more of the same, it's important to remember that Hudak was not unpopular in her district — Hudak had served in elected office on the state school board for years prior to her Senate win in 2008, and she was demonized by a small, vocal minority (many of whom weren't even residents of SD-19).

Democrats are fortunate to have three strong candidates to replace Hudak through a vacancy committee, and all three would be well-prepared to defend the seat in 2014. But it is purely circumstance — and not criticism of Kraft-Tharp or Gagliardi — that makes Zenzinger the most logical option at this point.

View the original article here

Angela Giron May Run…for Secretary of State?

A politician scorned?

Former Democratic Sen. Angela Giron was the surprise story of the September 10 recall election. Much of the attention was on Senate President John Morse, whose district (SD-11) is significantly more competitive in terms of voter registration numbers than Giron's former district (SD-3). Morse was recalled by a scant 343 votes, while more than 4,000 voters ousted Giron, (the total margin of defeat was 54-46 for Giron).

Much has been written here and elsewhere about Democratic infighting playing a significant role in Giron's loss, with a sizable portion of the blame apparently falling on Giron herself. Stories emerged before and after the recall that Giron was a demanding and difficult Senator to work with in her short time at the Capitol (she was elected in 2010). Some Democrats have privately opined that the silver lining from the recall is that SD-3 will likely elect a new Democratic Senator in 2014.

We may not have heard the last from Giron, however. The word on the street is that Giron is considering mounting a campaign for the Democratic nomination for Secretary of State, where CU Regent Joe Neguse has been running as the only Democrat since last summer. Neguse has widespread support among Democratic officials and had a good first fundraising quarter, so it is certainly a surprise to hear that another Democrat might be looking at the race — particularly Angela Giron.

We hear that Giron has gone far enough in the process that she even has a poll in the field testing the waters for SOS, which is not out of the question given that her campaign account may have had some surplus of funds. A poll this early in the race is likely to show relatively weak numbers for Neguse, only because he hasn't yet had time to really raise his name ID, which could give Giron some false hope if she does intend to enter the race. We have a hard time seeing how Giron could win a Democratic primary when she couldn't prevent a recall in a solidly-Democratic Senate district, but that doesn't mean she won't try anyway. 

View the original article here

“Honey Badger Lite”–Wayne Williams For Secretary of State

El Paso County Clerk Wayne Williams.

FOX 31's Eli Stokols reports:

El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Wayne Williams, a Republican, filed paperwork Tuesday to run for Colorado Secretary of State.

Williams, whose office oversaw a chaotic and controversial recall election in Colorado Springs last month, is currently the only Republican seeking to replace Scott Gessler, who is one of four candidates seeking the GOP’s nomination for governor next year…

Earlier this year, he firmly opposed the Democratic bill that overhauled the state’s election law, allowing for same-day voter registration and shifting all 64 county clerks to one electronic database that can track voter information in real time.

One of current Secretary of State Scott Gessler's closest allies, El Paso County Clerk Wayne Williams' holdout opposition to this year's election reform bill, House Bill 1303–while most county clerks in the state supported the bill–reportedly led him to resign from the Colorado Association of County Clerks. More recently, Williams' judgment was questioned in the recall elections after early voting locations and hours set up by his office were substantially more restricted compared to much better early voting accessibility in neighboring Pueblo. Detractors point to a much lower resulting turnout in SD-11 versus the SD-3 recall election in Pueblo. In Williams' defense, litigation from a minor-party candidate in SD-11 held up the works for awhile–but that doesn't fully explain the shorter hours and fewer locations even after that was resolved.

Williams has also been a bit sketchy on the issue of election fraud and the supposed "unintended consequences" of House Bill 1303. At times, Williams has been pretty good at making clear that stunts of the kind pulled by the Independence Institute's Jon Caldara, a Boulder resident who fraudulently affirmed a Colorado Springs address as his "sole residence" to vote in the SD-11 recall, are illegal. But as a shrill opponent on House Bill 1303, he's quick to misattribute pre-existing legal conflicts in Colorado election law to this year's legislation–and argue against reforms like same-day registration that, when you get down to it, are arguments about partisan advantage, not fair process.

We've mentioned the possibility of a run for Secretary of State by another Republican, Jefferson County Clerk Pam Anderson. We haven't heard anything definitive to rule that out in the last 24 hours, but Williams' entry does make it less likely that she will run. Given that Anderson was one of the prime architects of the same House Bill 1303 that Williams and so many partisan Republicans despise, she might have set the party up for some uncomfortable internal debates. On the other hand, she would have been a much better Secretary of State. The likely Democratic contender in this race, CU Regent Joe Neguse, should be very competitive against Williams. The biggest issue is that Williams will be very easy to lure into on-record statements that will make him appear most unsuitable for the job of administering fair elections.

After four years of the "Honey Badger," Coloradans are likely to pay more attention down the ticket this time.

View the original article here

State GOP’s biz relationship with State Chair’s firm could raise internal ethics issues for GOP

(The knives coming out for Ryan Call – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Reporters covering a press conference last Monday featuring GOP activists from Pueblo should have mentioned, at least as an aside, that the activists said GOP Chair Ryan Call's own law firm was hired to do the GOP's legal-defense work related to the Pueblo recall election.

Speaking to reporters, Pueblo Freedom and Rights founder Victor Head, and Tim Knight of Pueblo’s Basic Freedom Defense Fund, said they weren't sure if the Colorado State GOP was paying their legal-defense bills for the recall campaign, but they told reporters that Call's firm was doing legal-defense work for the GOP's Pueblo recall campaign.

Reporter: Was some of that legal-defense money earmarked from Ryan Call's own law firm?

Knight (@1430): Yes. As a matter of fact, that bill we're discussing, if he did pay us, he's paying his own law firm and he gets his own billable hours.

Watch the press conference here:

Last week I reported the media omission that Sarah Arnold, former El Paso Republican Party Secretary, accused state GOP Chair Ryan Call of using his own law firm for all the legal business of the State Republican Party.

Unfortunately, Call didn't return my request for a comment, but the fact is that Call's firm, Hale Westfall, was doing a lot of the Republican Party's legal work before Call was elected chair.

Now that Call is in charge of the State Party, the continued use of Call's law firm could present internal ethics issues for the Republican Party, just as corporate officers can run into ethics problems for directing corporate work to their personal business enterprises. But there's no public ethics issue involved in the State GOP's ongoing business relationship with Hale Westfall.

Here's a partial transcript of last Monday's press conference featuring comments by Head and Knight:

Reporter @12:50: How much did the [State GOP] actually give you all, in terms of the legal fees, for the District Court case?

Knight: That question remains to be seen. There was a bill that someone else had offered to pay. We're not sure of this. We've been asking for weeks. It appears that the State GOP may have paid that bill in an attempt to buy into the recall, saying, 'We did help. We paid your legal bill.' But they know, and we know, that someone else had agreed to pay that legal bill.

Reporter: How much was it?

Knight: Just short of $40,000. That was not the whole legal bill but part of it.

Reporter: How much is unsettled right now?

Head: I reached out to the law firm this morning to ask what the standing of our bill was, and they can't tell us.

Knight: They had to get permission from people to tell us.

Head: So we're almost in the dark. There are lots of entities that have stepped forward know to help us to buy their way into our success. And it's welcomed, I guess. Our bills will get paid. But that is not what was promised. That is not what happened when we were about to close. When we were short. We have a legal challenge, and we don't have the money to pay it. The recalls are going to go down, unless someone comes forward and helps. A bunch of promises happened. Nothing came through. We did it with 10, 20 callers at a time.

Knight: Selling personal stuff to pay for it.

Head: So as of this moment, as of this morning, I have no idea. Our law firm will not give as an account of who was paid what.

Reporter: Was some of that legal-defense money earmarked from Ryan Call's own law firm?

Knight (@1430): Yes. As a matter of fact, that bill we're discussing, if he did pay us, he's paying his own law firm and he gets his own billable hours.

View the original article here

What Sec of State would ever say that “you don’t have to live in the district in order to be able to vote there?”

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler told KNUS talk-radio host Steve Kelley yesterday: "Now, apparently, you don’t have to live in the district in order to be able to vote there, which I think is just absurd."

Listen to Gessler on KNUS radio 9-18-13

Gessler's comment to Kelley contradicts voting rules issued by Gessler's own office in August. On the subject of residency requirements, Gessler's rule (32.7.3.D) stated that voters must, in fact, reside in the district in which they vote.

Among other things, the rule stated that "intent to move, in and of itself, does not establish residence." 

AN ELECTOR MUST ESTABLISH A RESIDENCE BEFORE REGISTERING TO VOTE OR CHANGING HIS OR HER RESIDENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1-2-102, C.R.S. AN ELECTOR’S RESIDENCE IS HIS OR HER PRIMARY HOME TO WHICH HE OR SHE, WHENEVER ABSENT, HAS THE PRESENT INTENT OF RETURNING. AN ELECTOR ESTABLISHES A RESIDENCE EITHER BY MAINTAINING A RESIDENCE AS HIS OR HER PRIMARY HOME OR BY PHYSICALLY MOVING TO A NEW RESIDENCE WITH THE INTENT TO MAINTAIN THAT RESIDENCE AS A PRIMARY HOME. INTENT TO MOVE, IN AND OF ITSELF, DOES NOT ESTABLISH RESIDENCE….

This residency rule was part of a set of election guidelines that also included a measure, later thrown out by a judge, that would have made it harder for military families and students to vote.

Rather than just rescind the portion rejected by the courts, Gessler's office struck all of the guidelines in the rule, including the portion on residency requirements. So the SOS' residency guidelines are now off the books. Still, it's the last word we'd gotten from Gessler's office on the residency topic, and it contradicts what Gessler told Kelley yesterday.

And, re-focusing on the bigger picture, it's Alice-and-Wonderland logic to assert that Colorado's new election law allows you to vote anywhere you want in the entire state, regardless of where you live. And it's Mad Hatter-like for Secretary of State to say this, especially when his office contradicted him a couple months ago.

In a conversation with The Colorado Independent's Mike Littwin Tuesday, Gessler hinted that he knows deep down that you're required to vote where you reside. Gessler seemed to praise Jon Caldara for "staying in El Paso" after he voted there as part of a media stunt that's gotten Caldara in legal trouble. But as Littwin pointed out, Caldara has announced that he will continue to reside in Boulder.

But the day after he talked to Littwin, Gessler stepped up his rhetoric, saying on the radio if "you say you intend to live there then I guess that’s good enough." Then he went into full attack mode on the election law, forgetting that it was promoted by a bipartisan group of county clerks from across the state:

Gessler: But it just goes to show that the pull behind this bill really didn’t care about fairness. They didn’t care about listening to any other opinions except their own. They didn’t care about anything except, in my view a ruthless partisan power play. And that’s what they did. And when they froze everyone out, anyone who might disagree with them, they froze them out and refused to even talk to them about it. It shows you they were up to something, and you see the result. Apparently, you don’t have to live in the district anymore to be able to vote there. And that’s absurd.

What's really absurd would be if Gessler's comments go uncorrected in Denver media circles.

View the original article here

GOP Chair put “a little cold water on our parade” during Pueblo recall campaign, newly elected State Sen Says

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Yesterday, I urged reporters to keep an eye on a sub-plot that's emerged in the wake of the Republican recall victories: The "liberty" wing of the state GOP has apparently been re-energized by the election, and this could lead not only to a civil war among Colorado Republicans but also to serious election losses this year and into the future.

I mean, last time the base of the GOP got uppity in a sustained way, Ken Buck took down Jane Norton and Dan Maes fearlessly squeaked by Scott McInnis. (Maybe the insurgent air will inspire Scooter to write Musings Part II: Jaxine Bubis Style.)

Happy and hot after Tuesdays wins, the "liberty" faction isn't being polite about its dissatisfaction with the state GOP establishment, as evidenced by Tom Tancredo's comment yesterday, slamming State GOP Chair Ryan Call and expressing his amazement that the State GOP gets any "credibility whatsoever."

Though he was kinder toward Call than Tancredo was, newly elected State Sen. George Rivera hit the State Chair in a more home-spun way during an appearance on KNUS' Peter Boyles Show this morning: 

Rivera: To be honest with ya, Chairman Call did come down and kind of threw a little cold water on our parade and so on. But, you know, after the meeting and so on, I sat privately with Chairman Call and I told him, I says, 'Chairman, you don't know Pueblo. You've not been here when we've been doing our campaigning and seen the support we've got from the folks.' And I says, 'I believe you're wrong. And I believe the numbers will come out, and you guys will be very surprised.' Hopefully this will get him to kind of take a different look come 2014.

Boyles: I don't believe it.

George Rivera on KNUS Boyles Show 9-12-2013

You don't need to know much about Tea-Party activists to understand that they'll see this type of rain-on-your-parade behavior by Call as patronizing, to put it mildly.

They'll undoubtedly think similarly of Call's advice to Rivera on Tuesday afternoon, reminding him, like a well-intentioned mother might remind her son, to give a "gracious" concession speech, as opposed, presumably, to the hateful, spit-filled Tea-Party variety. (This was first reported by The Denver Post's Lynn Bartels.)

Obviously, no concession speech was needed because Rivera won the election, and Tea-Party activists were snickering about Call's "gracious" advice Thursday while they lambasted the State GOP for getting the Pueblo recall effort wrong every step of the way.

We'll undoubtedly be hearing a lot more about this in the coming months or years or decades. Civil wars, we all know, don't heal very fast, and, to the my real point, they make really good news stories, with intrigue, passion, and late-night stabbings.

View the original article here