Westword interview offers illuminating national perspective on abortion issues in state elections

(Promoted by Colorado Pols) In a Westword interview published today, NARAL President Ilyse Hogue says Virginia's November gubernatorial race is "something of a test case" to find out if the anti-choice positions of a candidate prove to be his downfall, just as abortion issues tipped the electoral scales against 2010 Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck here in Colorado.

Westword's Michael Roberts reports:

The Virginia governor's race between abortion opponent Ken Cuccinelli and pro-choice hopeful Terry McAuliffe, which will come to a head in November 2013, a year before most of the other contests, is something of a test case, Hogue believes. Moreover, the strategy NARAL is employing there is the same one that helped elect Senator Bennet in Colorado — highlighting the anti-abortion positions of an opponent (in Bennet's case, Ken Buck) whether or not they make them central to their campaign.

"Senator Bennet and politicians like him recognize that when the extreme positions of opponents are exposed and candidates are forced to speak to them and defend them in the public square, they lose," Hogue maintains. "You hear politicians say, 'I don't want to talk about this. It's a social issue, and people only want to hear about jobs and the economy.' But that's fundamentally untrue. Women's economic livelihood is tied up with their ability to take charge of their family planning. That's the real way Americans understand reproductive health and reproductive choice, and the extremists are very out of step with the common family experience in this country. We applaud Michael Bennet for his willingness to expose the extreme agenda of his opponent, and we think it's a winning strategy we'd like to see replicated around the country.

"In Virginia, we're seeing indications that voters who are otherwise on the fence or identify themselves as independents are being driven to not only go to the polls but vote for the pro-choice candidate when they see the extreme positions of the opponents extreme positions on choice — and Senator Bennet's campaign provided great modeling on that," she continues. "The protection of women to make personal decisions with their families and their doctors has not traditionally been a partisan issue. In Colorado, the laws were passed under a Republican governor [John Love, who signed a bill allowing abortion in the state circa 1967]. So, in these hyper-partisan times, we're looking for states like Colorado to exemplify the fact that this is a family issue, not a Democratic or Republican issue, and that we expect our leaders to act accordingly."

If you've been amazed at the starring role abortion issues have played on the political stage here is Colorado recently, you'll enjoy the national perspective on the topic provided in Roberts' piece today.

View the original article here

El Paso elections chief warns Caldara: “You better darn well plan on really” living here

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Speaking on a Colorado Springs radio station yesterday morning (listen @28:35), El Paso Country Clerk and Recorder Wayne Williams warned political stunt man Jon Caldara that he "better darn well plan on really" living in Colorado Springs, or he'll be prosecuted.

Williams: Caldara decided he was going to highlight this problem. Again, he better have really – I understand he’s got a lease. He’s planning on residing there, and as he said, “checking out the Springs.” And we welcome him to our community. We are happy to have legitimate people who are living here live here. But you better darn well plan on really doing that!

Caldara, who lives in Boulder, cast a blank ballot Saturday in the recall election of CO Springs Sen. John Morse, saying he's renting a room in the recall district

On KVOR's Richard Randall show, Williams said he'll determine after the election if "someone lied" about living in Morse's district, and then voted. And "if they did, they can be prosecuted for a felony." 

Williams: But, what you have then, is a system that says, under the law, if I really do move there, I can vote. Now, the challenge is, we have no verification of that beforehand. What we will do is investigate. And we will find out if someone lied. And if they did, they can be prosecuted for a felony…. And that’s what we intend to do, Richard. We intend to prosecute.

Randall agreed with Williams, saying:

Randall: And I would say this: whether it’s Caldara or anybody else – some union thug from Boulder who does it, if it turns out you lied and you wanted to participate in an election, you had no business doing it, and you didn’t follow up by actually being honest about your intentions, I do want Clerk and Recorders like Wayne Williams and prosecutors like Dan May and John Suthers to hit you with a felony.

You have to appreciate Randall standing up against voter fraud, and nudging fellow conservative Williams along in the same direction.

Maybe Randall will inspire Peter Boyles, over on KNUS in Denver, to apologize for telling callers yesterday to commit felony voter fraud.

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