Is Gessler on board with his own office’s election rule that you must live in a district to vote there?

(What’s up with the Caldara investigation? – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Back in August, Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s office issued an election rule stating that voters must reside in the same district in which they vote, and, in case someone like Jon Caldara was wondering, Gessler’s rule stated that “intent to move, in and of itself, does not establish residence.”

This sounded sensible to people who believe in representative government.

But about a week later, the residency rule was rescinded by Gessler’s office for no apparent reason. It was part of a set of election rules, one of which was thrown out by a judge, but Gessler wasn’t required to dump the residency rule. But he did anyway.

About a month later, people who believe in representative government were surprised when Gessler stepped up to a talk-show microphone on KNUS radio and proclaimed that under Colorado’s new election law, “you don’t have to live in the district in order to be able to vote there, which I think is just absurd.”

Now, even people who don’t believe in representative government were puzzled, because in August Gessler’s office had arrived at the exact opposite conclusion about the new law.

The eternal question: What would Gessler say next?

Well, on Oct. 9, the residency rule was re-issued by Gessler’s office in almost the exact same words as before, stating that “intent to move to a new district or county, in and of itself, is not enough to establish residency.”

The rule also says: “An elector may not register to vote in a new district or county unless he or she has already moved and established his or her primary residence in the new district or county.”

Just like before, this makes sense to most everyone, except maybe Jon Caldara and…we don’t know if Gessler’s on board with it, even though it emanated from his office.

Will Gessler again be asked to step up to a talk-radio microphone and explain if he still thinks, like he said before, that Colorado’s new election law mandates that “you don’t have to live in the district in order to be able to vote there?”

How could he possibly think so, now that his office has twice concluded otherwise? I’ll be sitting by my radio, waiting for his answer on KOA, KNUS, KLZ, or wherever.

Actually, wouldn’t it be fun if Jon Caldara asked Gessler about it on his Sunday KHOW show?

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

Then There Were Two, Sort Of: Owen Hill Files To Challenge Udall

State Sen. Owen Hill.

Once again, FOX 31's Eli Stokols reports:

Sen. Owen Hill, after just one year as a state lawmaker, is running for the U.S. Senate, FOX31 Denver is first to report.

Hill, R-Colorado Springs, will announce Monday that he is seeking the GOP’s nomination to challenge Democratic Sen. Mark Udall next year…

“We’ve been looking at it for a while,” Hill told FOX31 Denver Monday morning. “The Republican Party in Colorado does not have an answer for what the Democrats are doing. It’s time for some new ideas and for a candidate who will focus on innovation. both on policy and within our politics.

“There’s no one on our side who’s bringing that message of innovation and a focus on the freedom of the individual.”

Certainly freshman Sen. Owen Hill, 31, is a more formidable contender than Randy Baumgardner, the fellow state senator who is announcing his own bid this week for the GOP nomination to run against incumbent U.S. Senator Mark Udall in 2014. But that's principally because Baumgardner is, to put it charitably, laughably unqualified. In Hill's exceedingly short span as a state lawmaker, he has established a reputation as a circumlocutory and reasonably eloquent orator. To be clear, we're using the word "circumlocutory" because we know Sen. Hill knows what it means–even if none of you all do.

We can't call Sen. Hill an appreciably more competitive candidate for this office than some of the other names that remain out there, but a run for U.S. Senate in 2014 might make sense for Hill personally. For one thing, it's a safe race to run–he doesn't have to give up his state Senate seat. Even if he can't win, a well-fought placeholder effort against a safe Democratic incumbent could be the ticket to bigger things for Owen Hill down the road.

Bottom line: today, in this race, Hill evokes the GOP's weak bench in Colorado. In ten years, it may be different.

Full story: Then There Were Two, Sort Of: Owen Hill Files To Challenge Udall

View the original article here