Scott Gessler’s Blame Games Debunked Yet Again

Scott Gessler.

An excellent story in today's Durango Herald from reporter Joe Hanel demolishes recent claims from Secretary of State Scott Gessler that last year's election modernization bill, House Bill 1303, has pushed his office's budget into the red.

The truth? Gessler just doesn't manage money very well.

Gessler’s office was running a $7 million surplus – so large it violated the law – in June 2012. A year later, it had fallen to less than $2 million, and now legislators are worried his budget will need extra money to keep it afloat.

Most of the shortfall traces back to Gessler’s cuts to business filing fees, according to budget numbers the Herald obtained through the Colorado Open Records Act. He also spent money on website upgrades to make it easier to register a business in Colorado.

Gessler, a Republican, is running for governor, and he touts his cuts to business fees on the campaign trail. But under the Capitol dome, he places blame for his collapsing budget on House Bill 1303, a mail-voting bill that Democrats passed last spring. [Pols emphasis]

“The issue basically with the budget is 1303’s been a budget-buster. It’s blown our budget out of the water,” Gessler said at a Dec. 19 oversight hearing at the Legislature…

As Hanel explains and an astute reader of our blog laid out earlier this month, Secretary of State Gessler has repeatedly cut the fees paid by businesses other entities to register with the state, including "holidays" where the fees were basically eliminated for months at a time. This was done in part to reduce the Secretary of State's then very large budget surplus to the level allowed by law. Costs of modernizing the election system after House Bill 1303 were incurred, Hanel reports, but only after Gessler's office had lost millions of dollars in revenue from reduced fees on businesses.

As a Republican candidate for governor in 2014, Gessler has used these cuts–which he was partly obligated to make–as proof of his pro-business credentials. In hindsight, though, it looks like Gessler cut fees much too aggressively, leaving him with no cushion to pay for implementing an election modernization bill authored by county clerks from both parties. And what about all the money spent unsuccessfully defending Gessler from last year's ethics complaint?

It's not unreasonable to be, you know, less sympathetic to Gessler's budget problems with all this in mind.

View the original article here

It’s “War on Christmas” Season Once Again!

Striking a blow for paganism.

Talking Points Memo (the real one):

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly dedicated Monday's "Talking Points Memo" segment to denouncing what he called a "'Happy Holidays' syndrome" propagated by "secular progressives" and "pressure groups like the ACLU."

As evidence, O'Reilly displayed a flyer for Macy's "Santa Land" that touts it will help customers with their "holiday wish list."

"So here's my question to Macy's: what holiday is Santa celebrating?" he asked. "The Winter Solstice? The birthday of a reindeer? What?"

A "War on Christmas" is perennially alleged to be underway by Christian conservatives, who blame "atheist activists" for various perceived infringements on the right to publicly observe an essentially religious holiday. In Texas this year, state legislators passed a "Merry Christmas Bill," affirming the right of public school students and teachers to "offer traditional greetings."

The truth is, of course, that Christmas has lost its sanctity to decades of commercialization far more than to any anti-religious political agenda. Aggrieved Christians also sometimes overvalue their right to free religious expression against the rights of others to not observe any religion. Businesses enforce holiday-neutral expressions for practical reasons. Public spaces and organizations have an obligation to be respectful of everyone. In the end, the "War on Christmas" seems to exist mostly in the minds of those who promote the idea that such a thing exists at all. We submit that for most Americans, it just isn't a big deal either way.

With that said, we've already been told to watch for a Colorado "Merry Christmas Bill" next session.

View the original article here

Yup, They Did it Again

(TomSka/deviantart)

As CNN reports, the Republican-led House of Representatives remains paralyzed by the Tea Party. Today they voted (for the 42nd time) to defund Obamacare as part of the federal budget battle:

By a 230-189 tally almost strictly on party lines, the House passed a short-term government spending plan that would eliminate all funding for Obamacare.

The measure now goes to the Democratic-led Senate, which is certain to reject the provision that defunds President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement of his first term.

Even though House Republicans now have voted 42 times to repeal or otherwise undermine Obamacare, Speaker John Boehner and fellow Republicans held a brief victory rally after Friday's action and challenged the Senate to follow their lead…

…Later Friday, Obama accused conservative Republicans of holding the nation hostage by trying to make passing a federal budget and increasing the debt ceiling contingent on defunding health care reforms.

"You don't have to threaten to blow the whole thing up if you don't get your way," Obama said in a campaign-style speech at a Ford plant in the Kansas City, Missouri area, adding that legislators in Washington were focused on politics and "trying to mess with me," rather than helping the middle class.

House Speaker John Boehner appears completely resigned to doing whatever the Tea Party demands, which will do little more than place the blame on House Republicans if a new budget is not approved in October. Here in Colorado, Senator Mark Udall's campaign was already using the vote in a fundraising pitch via email:

With 10 days to go until the government shutdown, Republicans are playing a game of chicken — with themselves.

In order to appease the party’s far-right wing, Republican House leadership held a vote TODAY to defund Obamacare — or shutter the government and throw our economy into a tailspin. (UPDATE 9:20 a.m. MT this morning: the House passed this non-starter of a bill, 230-189.)

My opponents have already shown they’d fall into the far-right wing of their party — and this issue is no different. Just last night, Ken Buck signed the pledge to defund Obamacare. [Pols emphasis]

Being beholden to the Tea Party is also why Ken Buck still can't be competitive in a race for the U.S. Senate. But hey, maybe he can settle for back-to-back GOP nominations!

View the original article here

Once Again, These Were Two Different Recall Elections

Recalled Colorado Senators John Morse and Angela Giron.

As the post-mortem coverage of last week's historic recall elections in Colorado continues, we're seeing a trend toward an inaccurate hindsight narrative of what happened. It's important for both sides–Democrats seeking to prevent further recurrences, and Republicans hoping to adopt their success as a model to use elsewhere–to understand what actually happened, and how the results in the two separate recall elections held last week differ widely–just not in the biggest respect, the bottom line.

A story by the Denver Post's Lynn Bartels today typifies this problem:

Opponents of an effort to recall two Democratic state senators for supporting stricter gun laws borrowed a page from an earlier playbook, arguing reproductive rights were in peril if the lawmakers were kicked out of office.

But the message — so effective in keeping Republican Ken Buck from becoming a U.S. senator in 2010 — failed to protect Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, who were recalled by their constituents Sept. 10…

Here's the hole in Bartels' seductively lazy analysis: The Senate District 11 recall was decided by a mere 343 votes in unofficial tallies, while the margin of defeat for Sen. Angela Giron was over ten times that in an election with only about twice the number of voters as SD-11. As we've noted repeatedly in this space, the loss of mail ballots in the SD-11 recall can fully account for the margin of defeat for Senate President John Morse. Fewer vote centers and shorter hours to vote in El Paso County also factored disproportionately in this very close election.

This means any attempt to ascribe some kind of "common meaning" to these two elections, as the above story seems determined to do, is off-base. But for the logistical voting problems in SD-11, it's very likely that Sen. Morse would have prevailed in his recall. If that had happened, obviously we wouldn't be reading about how this or that tactic "failed" to save Morse, we'd be talking about how those tactics had succeeded. The truth is, 343 votes is not enough of a margin, especially given those balloting problems, to make any such judgment either way. In 2010, Sen. Michael Bennet very narrowly defeated Ken Buck in a victory heavily influenced by a collapse of support from women. Without polling to know that had happened, which we haven't had in this recall, it's impossible to know how well the ads against Bernie Herpin on the issue of reproductive choice actually worked.

Impossible to know, and irresponsible to assume.

That said, Democrats do need to acknowledge that something bad, and very different from the close race in SD-11, happened in Senate District 3. They won't find the answer in this story, in which Bartels indolently lets GOP talking head Katy Atkinson dive into free-ranging speculation about why Pueblo Democrats turned out one of their own. We seriously doubt it was the civil unions legislation passed this year as Atkinson speculates. The story we've heard, and tend to believe, is that Sen. Giron was perceived by many rank-and-file Pueblo Democrats as having neglected constituent services in the district. There is some cross-partisan appeal to the gun issue that needs to be acknowledged too, but if those we've spoken with about this are to be believed, much of the heavy margin of defeat for Giron, in a far more Democratic district, can be attributed to factors unique to Giron personally.

The proof of our theory, which we're at least honest enough to represent as a theory, will come in 2014–when GOP Sen.-elect George Rivera is defeated by a wide margin of his own. In the meantime, if Republicans want to believe that they are no longer vulnerable on the issue of reproductive choice and health, we know plenty of Democrats who'd be happy to encourage them.

View the original article here

Debunking Nonsense About Colorado Election Law (Again)

Wayne Laugesen, editor of the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Yesterday, Colorado Springs Gazette editor Wayne Laugesen published an editorial demanding a special session to "fix" the election modernization bill passed by the General Assembly this year, House Bill 1303. Republican opponents of this new law, which was written in large part by county clerks from both parties, have made a range of highly dubious claims about this bill, from warnings that it would facilitate "gypsy voting" by nonresidents to the bizarre assertion that ballots might arrive "from Chicago" and be legally cast in Colorado elections.

Jon Caldara of the right wing Independence Institute went so far as to cast a ballot in the recent Senate District 11 (Colorado Springs) primary, even though he has lived in Boulder for nearly 30 years. As we've explained based on sound legal opinions we've heard, Caldara's logic is fundamentally flawed, and he has exposed himself to criminal prosecution by falsely affirming his "residence" in Colorado Springs. It seems like part of the purpose of Laugesen's silly editorial is to run cover for Caldara's election fraud, but he doesn't even manage that as we'll explain.

Here are some of the major claims made by the Gazette yesterday about Colorado election law, with their debunking. We hope that at some point journalists will stop allowing this nonsense to be uncritically repeated by their outlets, to include their editorial boards:

The new law undoes traditional checks and balances that have kept elections fair. Gone are assurances that only lawful residents of a jurisdiction get to vote in an election. Before HB1303, only the tinfoil hat crowd worried much about election fraud. Today, with HB1303, it's a legitimate concern…

Now first of all, we're pretty sure Laugesen just accused Secretary of State Scott Gessler and a whole lot of other Republicans who do indeed "worry about election fraud" of being members of the "tinfoil hat crowd!" Setting that aside for a moment, Laugesen is wrong–House Bill 1303 does not eliminate "assurances that only lawful residents of a jurisdiction get to vote in an election." Voting fraud is today–and always has been–a felony. Same day registration doesn’t remove any checks and balances, and actually isn't all that new. As the Secretary of State's office itself explained, the law allows voters to cast a ballot after they have already moved to the district and their address is verified.

We know the law can be abused, which is obvious to anyone who reads it. Any question about the biggest flaw in HB1303 was eliminated when Jon Caldara, a Boulder resident and president of Colorado's Independence Institute, cast a blank ballot in the District 11 recall to make a point.

You might recall during the debate over gun safety legislation in the General Assembly this year, a key contention by opponents was that "criminals don't care about laws." This argument always dumbfounded us, because it's a completely ridiculous tautology–of course criminals "don't care about laws," that's why they're criminals. But here we have one of the same people who made this ridiculous argument, that criminals don't follow laws, calling for–wait for it–stricter election laws! Because–wait for it–it's possible to break the law! We agree Caldara is a great example of the problem of people breaking laws.

Oops.

That was a high-profile stunt, and authorities could do nothing to stop it because of HB1303.

If someone swears under penalty of perjury that something is true, generally that sworn statement is accepted by whoever is asking for it. If it is determined that a person lied under penalty of perjury, they then can be prosecuted. That didn't change with House Bill 1303. Caldara committed a felony by pretending to move to Colorado Springs and casting a ballot in the recall election. As we've explored in detail, it was obviously never Caldara's "intention" to move to Colorado Springs. So he committed a felony. The threat of felony prosecution is now, and has always been, the principal deterrent to election fraud. 

Traditionally, one had to have roots in a community before voting in it. Not now. The wording below clearly shows that one can show up in a jurisdiction on the day of an election and vote with nothing more than an "intention" of making the place a permanent home…

This gives almost any Coloradan – especially those among us who are willing to lie – an easy opportunity to vote in local elections.

We're kind of amazed to see such unthinking nonsense coming from the editor of a major newspaper. Folks, we hate to break this to you if you didn't already know it, but people who are "willing to lie" can vote wherever they want. They are committing a felony if they do, just like they were before House Bill 1303. If this seems obvious to you, it's probably because you are smarter than a proverbial fifth grader.

As for "roots in the community?" Before House Bill 1303, a voter had to live in the district they voted in for a whopping 29 days. Under House Bill 1303, it's 22 days resident in-state, a person must have already moved to the district, and their intention must be to remain in the district. Now, it's possible that Laugesen is referring to some other kind of long-ago "tradition," back in the days of poll taxes or literacy tests? But if he's discussing the laws Colorado has used for elections since well before House Bill 1303, the residency requirement was always 29 days. We have no idea what kind of "roots in the community" one can establish in 29 days, but we'd say probably not very damned much.

Want to pass or kill a local school tax? Bring in voters willing to state an "intention" to move. Want to undo a municipal gun law? Ask impassioned gun-rights activists to show up and state their intentions to move.

In a hurry? Run a stop light. Want more money? Rob a bank.

Please remember that there are consequences if you do.

Even if county officials can prosecute, they have no good means of detecting such activity.

Again, this is just not true. Pueblo County Clerk Gilbert "Bo" Ortiz was able to show inquiring reporters that there had only been 39 same-day registrants in the SD-3 primary out of some 11,000 votes that had been cast by that time. According to Ortiz, it's no problem to track these registrations, and anyone he suspects of voter fraud will be turned over to the local distract attorney. Laugesen says that such prosecutions can't "undo the damage" of voter fraud, but how could they ever? How can you un-commit any crime?

This concludes today's lesson in remedial critical thinking, which unfortunately newspaper editors are not required to pass. We'll be happy to recount this as many times as necessary, but we hope–probably in vain–that the Wayne Laugesens of the world get their facts straight first.

View the original article here

Dredging Up “Jessica’s Law” (Again and Again)

Bernie Herpin.

The press release went out Wednesday from Colorado Senate District 11 recall successor candidate Bernie Herpin, though you've seen its subject many times:

Today, Bernie Herpin pledged to lead the way in passing Jessica’s Law in the Colorado Senate once John Morse is recalled.

Herpin was joined at the press conference by the bill’s House Sponsor Representative Libby Szabo, Police Protection Association Vice President Mike Singels, and former El Paso County Undersheriff Teri Goodall.

This past legislative session, Libby Szabo led the fight for Jessica’s Law in the Colorado House. Unfortunately, Democrat leadership blocked Jessica’s Law.

Wednesday's Herpin campaign press conference featured Arvada Rep. Libby Szabo, who appeared on the O'Reilly Factor show on FOX News earlier this year to accuse Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino of "obviously protecting someone" by sending this perennially-introduced legislation to die in the House State Affairs Committee–an explicit attack, happily assisted by O'Reilly, on the fact that Speaker Ferrandino is openly gay.

As we've discussed exhaustively in this space, Colorado law is already considered stronger than the provisions of "Jessica's Law," which could also rob courts of reasonable latitude to best make the punishment fit the crime. For this reason, Szabo's legislation was opposed by both the Colorado District Attorneys' Council and the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Many readers will also recall the indignant reaction to these allegations from former Denver Post editor Curtis Hubbard, who went on the O'Reilly Factor himself to refute the entire story.

In short, Bernie Herpin is counting on voters in Senate District 11 not having heard the details about "Jessica's Law." If Herpin actually cared about the issue, he would be aware that current law allows for more severe punishments of sexual predators than "Jessica's Law" would mandate. He knows that, and so does Rep. Libby Szabo. The whole "Jessica's Law" media offensive by Republicans this year was nothing more than a dishonest (and bigoted) attempt to manipulate the fears of low-information voters for electoral advantage.

So naturally, it's the ideal smear for these recall elections.

View the original article here

BREAKING: Recalls Upended By Court Ruling (Again)

UPDATE #2: FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

The Sept. 10 recall elections of two Democratic Colorado lawmakers was supposed to be the first test-run of a new election overhaul, passed this year by Democrats, that would have sent mail ballots to every voter.

Now, those elections won’t involve any mail ballots at all.

After a long day in court, District Judge Robert McGahey ruled in favor of Colorado Libertarians, who’d sued after being denied a spot on the recall ballot because they failed to meet a deadline, put in place by the new election law, to submit petitions within 10 days of the election date being set…

“I know what this decision means,” McGahey told the court as he issued the ruling around 7 p.m. Monday night, alluding to concerns from county clerks of escalating election costs and from Democrats who worried that the loss of mail ballots, which can’t be printed and mailed to voters in time if candidate signatures are validated so late, will lower voter turnout.

—–

UPDATE: The Colorado Springs Gazette's Megan Schrader:

[Judge Robert] McGahey said Secretary of State Scott Gessler erred when ignoring the constitution in favor of a new state statute that set deadlines for ballot access in the recall elections.

The new deadline was important for another part of the new election law that required ballots to be sent in the mail to every registered voter, regardless of whether they requested one.

—– 

We're still working on the details, but a ruling late today on a conflict between the state's new election statute and the Colorado constitution in Denver District Court appears to throw the upcoming recall special elections into chaos so as to give third party candidates a shot at the ballot. FOX 31's Eli Stokols Tweeted a short while ago:

Apparently, minor party candidates will have the chance to get on the recall successor candidate ballot by August 26th now, which means the expected mailing of ballots next week will not go forward. This decision is also subject to appeal, which seems quite likely under the circumstances. Stand by for updates…

View the original article here

Buck lost last time saying abortion doesn’t matter, and he’s saying it again

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

On KHOW radio Friday, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck said voters can "absolutely" count on him to vote his conscience. (Listen to Ken Buck @6:50)

Normally, you might think this would be a good thing. But when it comes to Ken Buck, and you recall his conscience-laden opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape and incest, you realize that Ken-Buck-voting-his-conscience may not be so great for women.

Given how desired women are by political campaigns in Colorado, it's astonishing that Buck is already doing what he did during the last election. That is, trying to say abortion doesn't matter; no one cares about it.

As Buck told the Colorado Observer when asked if his abortion position had changed:

Buck: You know, what I believe is Congress has voted to ban late-term abortions, and I’m one who opposes late-term abortions, and voted to ban federal funding for abortion, and I’m one who opposes federal funding of abortion. I’m tired of people talking about issues that are not relevant to the public. I’m a pro-life candidate.

How is abortion not relevant when pretty much everyone agrees Buck lost last time because of abortion and women's issues? 

And politics aside, abortion issues are addressed in the U.S. Congress. In addition to countless bills that go nowhere, but create PR fodder, the issue gets real-time play. Remember in 2011, funding for Planned Parenthood was at the center of negotiations that almost led to a government shutdown. Federal money for the United Nations Population Fund, whose health services are a life saver for tens of thousands of impoverished people, was also under attack by Republicans with a conscience.

With any luck, reporters will respond to Buck's nonsensical no-one-cares-about-abortion defense like Gloria Neal did during a televised debate on CBS4, when Neal asked Buck, “Will you really make a raped woman carry a child to full term?”

Buck said that “we need to stay focused on the issues that voters in this state care about, and those are spending and jobs.”

Neal responded:

“Social issues are important to the voters in this state. I am one of them. So I need you to answer that question, because in addition to votes and jobs and all of that abortion is very important, and when you start talking about rape and incest, that is important to the voters. So, please, answer that question.”

Buck then said:

“I am pro-life, and I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape and incest.”

That's the kind of questioning I'd like to have seen from KHOW's Ross Kaminsky. So what if Kaminsky is a fellow conservative. If he's going to demand that Ken Buck vote his conscience, he should dig into what Buck's conscience would do to women.

Partial transcript of Ken Buck's appearance on KHOW Friday. (Listen to Ken Buck @6:50)

Kaminsky: Can I count on you, Ken Buck, that if you get in the U.S. Senate, and there’s some vote.. [and] you want to vote yes, and Senate leadership asks you to vote no, can I count on you to vote yes? Can I count on you to vote your conscience?

Buck: Oh, you absolutely can. I have to tell you. I think that's a huge problem in Washington DC. And I'm not just talking about bipartisanship. I'm talking about people who are doing the right thing regardless of special interest groups, regardless of their future.

View the original article here

Lamborn vs. The “Morning After Pill” (Again)

Plan B.

Reports the Colorado Springs Independent:

U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn has reintroduced legislation aimed at banning "morning-after pills" from school clinics. The bill would prohibit federal funding to schools whose clinics provide emergency contraception, which is currently available on drugstore shelves to anyone who wants to buy it.

In a press release, Lamborn argued that school clinics should not carry the pill, citing various risks. The pill has long been targeted by conservatives who claim it can cause a fertilized egg to abort…

More from Rep. Doug Lamborn's press release:

"Schools should not be giving these powerful drugs to our children. In addition to the emotional and behavioral risks associated with these drugs, these drugs can do serious physical harm. The manufacturer of one of these drugs warns of the increased possibility of blood clots, heart attack, and stroke. Parents must be involved in important choices like this for their children, and school-based health clinics exclude parents from the decision. [Pols emphasis]

"This is outrageous and must stop. We owe it to our young people to protect them from exposure to these dangerous drugs."

…The bill would prohibit federal funding of any school that distributes or provides emergency contraception (such as the "morning-after" pill) or a prescription for such contraception on the premises or in the facilities of an elementary or secondary school.

While Rep. Lamborn seeks to crack down on availability of the so-called "morning after pill," the FDA announced in June that the medication will be made available over-the-counter–the end of a long battle over expanding access to the drug. Although conservatives warn of health effects, the primary objection according to most public health experts has always always religious in nature–concerns based on the religious concept of "life" beginning at conception, and supposed erosion of personal morality standards in the face of easy contraception.

Lamborn's press release notes that this is the fourth time he has introduced this legislation, so much like the perennial backers of the "Personhood" abortion ban initiative in Colorado, his arguments are well-rehearsed! Unfortunately for Lamborn, the prospects beyond the GOP-controlled House for this bill aren't much different.

View the original article here

Stock market? Credit rating? They don’t come up as Gardner threatens to hijack debt-ceiling extension once again

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

You may recall that when House Republicans blocked the extension of the U.S. debt ceiling a couple years ago, the stock market went into cardiac arrest and America's credit rating was downgraded.

So are you shocked that Rep. Cory Gardner is on the radio talking about doing it again?

Maybe you're not shocked, but, still, if you presided over a talk-radio show, your brain might tell you to ask a follow-up question when Gardner says he wants to leverage the debt-ceiling extension to push his anti-government agenda.

Gardner told KFTM's John Waters Monday that he sees the upcoming extension of the debt ceiling as an "opportunity to reduce the size and scope of government, and how we can require opportunities to look for savings, look for cuts, and what we’re going to do to grow the economy through common sense tax reform. I think there’s great opportunities for us to get back on track." (Listen here.) 

Gardner is obviously free to push his anti-government agenda in Congress, as well has his anti-abortion one, but why not ask him why he doesn't use the budget process for this? That's where debate about these issues is supposed to take place.

Democrats and Republicans have extended the debt ceiling over 100 times since 1940, with little opposition (until 2011). Reagan did it 18 times; G.W. Bush seven.

Do we really want to risk another credit downgrade, as well as a stock market collapse, to debate budget issues that are properly addressed elsewhere? 

It's a question that Waters should have put to Gardner.

Here's the exchange on KFTM:

WATERS: Uh, we also –coming up later on in the year, we might as well touch on it– we’re going to be up against the debt ceiling again and there’s always those budget issues.

GARDNER: It is. And that’s a big part of the discussion too. And so, what the debt ceiling is, of course, is the maximum that the United States can borrow. Now, what’s unique about the debt ceiling is it’s not a debate about how much more you can borrow to spend new money. It’s about how much you can borrow to pay for money that you’ve already spent. And so, it’s money that has already been spent, and the US has to borrow it in order to keep up with it. And so the debt ceiling limit, in that sense, — we’ve got to use this opportunity to reduce the size and scope of government, and how we can require opportunities to look for savings, look for cuts, and what we’re going to do to grow the economy through common sense tax reform. I think there’s great opportunities for us to get back on track.

Full story: Stock market? Credit rating? They don’t come up as Gardner threatens to hijack debt-ceiling extension once again

View the original article here