Before the election I made some predictions, mostly, but not all, safe ones. How did I make out? The shorter version is that I misjudged five of sixteen ballot issues, and rated one as less close than it really should have been rated. I was correct on all partisan races where I gave an opinion and on the judicial race where I gave an opinion.
National:
1. Democrats will win a majority of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
True
2. Democrats will win more seats in the U.S. Senate.
True
3. Ohio's next Governor will be a Democrat.
True
4. New York's next Governor will be a Democrat.
True
Colorado:
1. Democrat Bill Ritter will defeat Republican Bob Beauprez by a comfortable margin in the Governor's race.
True
2. Democrat Ed Perlmutter will defeat Republican Rick O'Donnell in the 7th Congressional District race.
True
3. Amendment 38 (Petitions) will be defeated.
True
4. Amendment 40 (Judicial Term Limits) will be defeated.
True
5. Amendment 41 (Government Ethics) will pass.
True
6. Amendment 44 (Marijuana Possession) will fail.
True
7. Referendum G (Obsolete Constitutional Provisions) will pass.
True
8. Democrat John Salazar will defeat Scott Tipton in the 3rd Congressional District race.
True
9. Democrat Diana DeGette will defeat her Green Party opponent in the 1st Congressional District.
True
10. Reform Candidate Eric Eidness will not win the 4th Congressional District race, despite having received many newspaper endorsements and doing well in the polls for a third party candidate.
True
11. Democrat Mark Udall will prevail over token Republican opposition in the 2nd Congressional District.
True
12. Voter turnout will be lower than in a Presidential election year, but will be at levels at least comparable to the 2002 election.
Still Unclear
13. The percentage of votes cast absentee and by early voting in 2006 will be greater than in 2002.
True
14. All judges other than Court of Appeals Judge Marquez will be retained.
True
Denver:
1. Referendum 1B (Financial Reorganization) will pass.
True
Of course, the flip side of the easy predictions, are the races to watch. They are:
Toss Up
Secretary of State
Republican wins with 51.6% of the vote -- CORRECT
State Treasurer
Democrat wins with 50.4% of the vote -- CORRECT
Amendment 39 (School Spending)
Fails 31-69 --- Prediction WRONG
Amendment 43 (Marriage)
Wins 56-44 ---- Prediction WRONG
Referendum I (Domestic Partnerships)
Fails 53-47 --- Prediction not clearly wrong.
Leans Democratic
State School Board District 7
True
State House Control
True
Leans Republican
Attorney General
True
CU Regent At Large
True (but final count could still flip this one)
4th Congressional District
True
5th Congressional District
True
State School Board District 4
True
Leans Pass:
Amendment 42 (Minimum Wage)
True
Referendum E (Veteran's Property Taxes)
True
Referendum F (Recall Deadlines)
False --- Prediction WRONG
Referendum H (Tax Deduction For Illegal Immigrant Compensation)
True -- but should have been rated toss up, was very close.
Referendum J (School Spending)
False --- Prediction WRONG
Denver Referendum 1A (Preschool)
True -- but should have been rated toss up, was very close.
Leans Fail:
Referendum K (Immigration Lawsuit v. Feds)
False --- Prediction WRONG
Likely Democratic
State Senate Control
True
Likely Republican
6th Congressional District
True
CU Regent District 3
True
Likely Retention
Court of Appeals Judge Marquez
True
Showing posts with label 2006 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2006 election. Show all posts
09 November 2006
What The GOP Did Wrong: A Republican View.
We just got our ass kicked and everybody damn well knows the reason why. . . .
The Iraq war is a disaster. Not irretrievably so militarily or strategically, where we are surviving a war of attrition in what is essentially a test of political will, but politically - where the rationales and strategies and realistic prospects for the war have not been described to the American people. This is a failure squarely to be laid at the door of the White House and its communication machine. . . .
The ethical emanation coming from the Congress is putrid. It’s on a bipartisan basis, but scrappy underdogs get forgiven for their colorful escapades. People who are allegedly governing don’t.
This Congress’ performance on other issues has been at best uninspired. No decisive action to take control of the nation’s borders. No resolution reached of the knotty questions surrounding immigration policy. No progress on fixing Social Security. A trainwreck prescription drugs bill hated by everyone. Bloated pork bills designed to curry favor with every special interest group in America - how well did that one work out for you, fellows? Currying favor with us religious elements on trivial crap, and blowing us off or dropping the ball on big picture questions. The list goes on.
Damn it all, this has to stop.
We are not electing you people to go to Washington and get rich in sweetheart deals. We are not electing you people because we saw your picture and said “this guy should get invited to every cocktail party in the Beltway”. We send you to our nation’s capital - a place where American soldiers have seen battle and shed blood - in order that you can govern this nation. But most of you don’t even govern yourselves. . . .
If you’re thinking “you know, I really need to start having relationships with teenagers…I wonder who’s on Yahoo Chat tonight”, then ask yourself “have we won in Iraq, fixed Social Security, saved the health care system, made progress in the war on terror, AND secured the borders?” If the answer is “no”, then I suggest that you put down the IM client and get your ass back to work.
From here.
07 November 2006
Election Reflections
Democrats control the U.S. House, the Colorado State Senate, the Colorado State House, and the Governor's mansion in Colorado. Democratic control of the state house will be stronger than it was before the election, and there are a couple of Senate seats that could ultimately go to Democrats as election day ballots are still being counted. The Colorado delegation to Congress will now be, at least, 4-3 in the House and 1-1 in the Senate.
Angie Paccione has a dim chance of pulling a come from behind victory in the dark hours of the night, but is trailing now in the 4th CD race. Still, she brought Musgrave to her worst ever electoral performance, just 46% of the people in her district voted for her. Musgrave remains an endangered Republican in what should be a safe Republican district.
Three close U.S. Senate races, in Missouri, Virginia and Montana, must all go our way for Democrats to retake the Senate (and even then, they will need Lieberman to do so). But, Democrats are leading in the current tally in all three races with most of the vote counted in Missouri and Virginia, and a more comfortable lead, despite having only 60% of the vote counted, in Montana. Still, Democrats will definitely increase their numbers in the Senate, and have a real shot at gaining a majority. It will be much harder for Republicans to push legislation through the Senate in the next session.
Not every ballot issue went the way I would have liked it to go. Amendment 43, putting a marriage definition into the state constitution passed, while Referendum I, establishing a state domestic partnership statute, failed, both by margins too great to attribute to Denver election mischief. Still, Amendment 43 simply restates a Colorado statute, and Referendum I's defeat simply leaves us with the status quo. Amendment 41 prevailed by wide margins, as expected, and while it is a bad constitutional provision, it isn't catastrophically bad and won't ruin the state as Amendment 39 might have. Referendums H and K involve such small sums of money, and have so little substantive impact, that their outcome doesn't matter much. The failure of Referendum 1A in Denver, likewise, simply leaves us with the status quo on pre-school funding, although it makes a blow to Mayor Hickenlooper's mythic reputation for being able to convince Denver voters of anything. H and 1A are close enough the continued ballot counting could impact them.
While it didn't end up having too much policy effect, most likely influencing some less important ballot issues and down ticket statewide races, if any, Denver's utter election disaster will leave a lasting impression. I doubt that the Denver Election Commission will be running many more elections at this rate, even if its structure is not inherently at fault. A similar disaster in 2008 would be unacceptable, and even this snafu puts the 2008 Democratic Party National Convention at risk.
Practically speaking, what does all this mean?
Bill Ritter's platform will be Colorado law in short order.
There will be an intense effort on the part of Republicans to make their last ditch efforts to pass partisan legislation in the lame duck session this year. Maybe, for once, Democratic Senators will feel emboldened to filibuster these efforts.
Bush will no longer have any ability to change the legislative status quo, or to write his own budget, without Democratic party consent, for the remainder of his Presidency. Democrats will be pressuring him to back down on the Iraq War and to cut the corruption that pervades his administration. The Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, stripped of many of their moderates, will likely grow even more shrill and out of the mainstream than they already are now.
Angie Paccione has a dim chance of pulling a come from behind victory in the dark hours of the night, but is trailing now in the 4th CD race. Still, she brought Musgrave to her worst ever electoral performance, just 46% of the people in her district voted for her. Musgrave remains an endangered Republican in what should be a safe Republican district.
Three close U.S. Senate races, in Missouri, Virginia and Montana, must all go our way for Democrats to retake the Senate (and even then, they will need Lieberman to do so). But, Democrats are leading in the current tally in all three races with most of the vote counted in Missouri and Virginia, and a more comfortable lead, despite having only 60% of the vote counted, in Montana. Still, Democrats will definitely increase their numbers in the Senate, and have a real shot at gaining a majority. It will be much harder for Republicans to push legislation through the Senate in the next session.
Not every ballot issue went the way I would have liked it to go. Amendment 43, putting a marriage definition into the state constitution passed, while Referendum I, establishing a state domestic partnership statute, failed, both by margins too great to attribute to Denver election mischief. Still, Amendment 43 simply restates a Colorado statute, and Referendum I's defeat simply leaves us with the status quo. Amendment 41 prevailed by wide margins, as expected, and while it is a bad constitutional provision, it isn't catastrophically bad and won't ruin the state as Amendment 39 might have. Referendums H and K involve such small sums of money, and have so little substantive impact, that their outcome doesn't matter much. The failure of Referendum 1A in Denver, likewise, simply leaves us with the status quo on pre-school funding, although it makes a blow to Mayor Hickenlooper's mythic reputation for being able to convince Denver voters of anything. H and 1A are close enough the continued ballot counting could impact them.
While it didn't end up having too much policy effect, most likely influencing some less important ballot issues and down ticket statewide races, if any, Denver's utter election disaster will leave a lasting impression. I doubt that the Denver Election Commission will be running many more elections at this rate, even if its structure is not inherently at fault. A similar disaster in 2008 would be unacceptable, and even this snafu puts the 2008 Democratic Party National Convention at risk.
Practically speaking, what does all this mean?
Bill Ritter's platform will be Colorado law in short order.
There will be an intense effort on the part of Republicans to make their last ditch efforts to pass partisan legislation in the lame duck session this year. Maybe, for once, Democratic Senators will feel emboldened to filibuster these efforts.
Bush will no longer have any ability to change the legislative status quo, or to write his own budget, without Democratic party consent, for the remainder of his Presidency. Democrats will be pressuring him to back down on the Iraq War and to cut the corruption that pervades his administration. The Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, stripped of many of their moderates, will likely grow even more shrill and out of the mainstream than they already are now.
Early Results In Colorado
Democrat Bill Ritter will be Colorado's next Governor. Democrat Ed Perlmutter is well on his way to winning CO-7, flipping that seat from Republican control. Republican Doug Lamborn looks likely to maintain Republican control of CO-5. Republican John Suthers is well on his way to being elected to a new term as Colorado's Attorney General, although without Denver results in this is hard to say with certainty.
The squeaker in this race is C0-4, in which Angie Paccione and Marilyn Musgrave are in a race too close to call at this point. So too, are the races for Secretary of State and State Treasurer, with Democrat Cary Kennedy in the State Treasurer's race doing slightly better than Democrat Ken Gordon in the Secretary of State's race.
Most of the initiatives: 38 (petitions), 39 (65% on instruction), 40 (judicial term limits), and 44 (marijuana) are heading to defeat. But, 41 (ethicis in government) is passing. Amendent 42 (minimum wage) seems on track to pass by a more narrow margin. So is Denver 1B (CFO position). Referendum J (65% on instruction) is on track to fail. Referendums E (Veteran's Property Tax Breaks), F (Recall Deadlines), G (Obsolete Provisions of Constitution repealed) and K (Sue Feds Over Immigration) are on track to pass. All of the Court of Appeals judges will be retained.
Amendment 43 (marriage) and Referendum I (domestic partnership) are all too hard to call at this point because the more liberal positions are trailing by a margin that Denver results could change. Referendum H (tax deductions for illegal immigrant compensation) is close.
The squeaker in this race is C0-4, in which Angie Paccione and Marilyn Musgrave are in a race too close to call at this point. So too, are the races for Secretary of State and State Treasurer, with Democrat Cary Kennedy in the State Treasurer's race doing slightly better than Democrat Ken Gordon in the Secretary of State's race.
Most of the initiatives: 38 (petitions), 39 (65% on instruction), 40 (judicial term limits), and 44 (marijuana) are heading to defeat. But, 41 (ethicis in government) is passing. Amendent 42 (minimum wage) seems on track to pass by a more narrow margin. So is Denver 1B (CFO position). Referendum J (65% on instruction) is on track to fail. Referendums E (Veteran's Property Tax Breaks), F (Recall Deadlines), G (Obsolete Provisions of Constitution repealed) and K (Sue Feds Over Immigration) are on track to pass. All of the Court of Appeals judges will be retained.
Amendment 43 (marriage) and Referendum I (domestic partnership) are all too hard to call at this point because the more liberal positions are trailing by a margin that Denver results could change. Referendum H (tax deductions for illegal immigrant compensation) is close.
Partisan Election Officials
I've told my readers more than once that a system like Colorado's, in which elections are largely run by partisan elected officials (the Secretary of State at the state level, and a partisan elected clerk and recorder at the county level, outside of Denver . . . I don't know what they do in Broomfield), is a disaster in the making.
Don't believe me. Hear it from an election law specialist. An alternative proposal is set forth here. He proposes:
1. Universal voter registration conducted by the federal government which issues ID cards with biometric ID (such as a fingerprint). The ID would not be required to vote, because the biometric information would be stored in a central database. Change of address cards at the U.S. Postal Service and death certificates would be cross-referenced.
2. Nonpartisan election administration. A bipartisan supermajority (say 75%) would be required to appoint a state election administrator, who in turn would appoint local election administrators. Australia and Canada are proposed as models.
3. Increase the ease with which pre-election court challenges can be filed (under doctrines such as standing and case and controversy rules), but bar challenges that could have been foreseen prior to the election which were strategically not brought.
Universal Voter Registration
I personally think it wouldn't be hard to do (1) at the state level, as opposed to the federal level, respecting the general principle that election administration is conducted by states rather than by the federal government. This would also alleviate fears of a national ID card. Interstate cooperation and U.S.P.S. cooperation could still be mandated. Indeed, government sponsored voter registration can be done at the local level even if not required and rather than producing a race to the bottom, tends to produce interjurisdiction competition to improve voter registration.
Non-Partisan Administration
I agree with the model of (2). I've spoken with judges in Michigan, who are elected locally, about whether, if there was a shift to an appointment system, they would favor local appointments or a state appointment. The consensus was that state appointments (which we have in Colorado) were better, because judges often have to rule on cases involving local governments and would still "owe" something to the parties in such cases, something much less likely to be the case with a state appointment. The same reasoning applies to elections officials.
Keep in mind that the total statewide number of elections officials is actually rather small, especially in the "off season" and that election administration doesn't very naturally fit county boundaries these days now that Baker v. Carr imposed a one man, one vote requirement on states that broke the connection between state legislative districts and county boundaries. The clerk and recorder's office is typically a small percentage of total county employment (on the order of 4% or less), and the elections division is typically a small fraction of the total office's employment, which is dominanted by the DMV and the real estate recording division.
Denver's Election Commission employs 21 permanent and temporary employees (including the executive director) who report to three election commissioners. The Commission is constrained by all of the City's elected officials and by the D.A. and the Secretary of State. Denver makes up about 1/8th of the population of the state of Colorado. Thus, it is fair to estimate that a single statewide office for elections would require about 168 employees, plus some additional employees transferred from the elections division of the Secretary of State.
Similarly, the Secretary of State's office is a small percentage of total state employment (the entire Department including the business division, notary services and bingo supervision has a $28 million budget out of a $17,025 million state budget, about 0.2%, its share coming entirely from user's fees; there are about 111 employees in the office (FTE) about 0.5% of the total state employment in Colorado), and the elections division is a small fraction of the office's total employment, about 18 people. National elections division FTE figures are available here.
It is fair to guess that fewer than 200 employees statewide could carry out out electoral functions currently carried about by local clerk and recorder's officers, election commissions and the Colorado Secretary of State, for a comparable cost to current arrangements, which is a tiny share of state and local budgets. (For comparison purposes, the State Treasurer's office in Colorado has 23 FTE employees, and the Attorney General's office has 132, while the State Auditor, who is appointed by the legislature, has 52; about a quarter of state executive branch employees are in the Department of Corrections and about a quarter are in the Department of Human Services).
Interestingly, Colorado's Constitution does not require that a county clerk and recorder administer local elections, although it does require that counties have an elected clerk and recorder. A state statute turning over all election administration duties to state government would probably be constitutional. Some of the Secretary of State's election administration duties, however, are constitutional in nature. Some of the Secretary of State's constitutional electoral duties, like transmitting election results to the General Assembly, however, could be reduced to ceremonial duties by statute, and the administration of the campaign finance system, which is the Secretary of State's responsibility, could be severed from the other obligations of the position, like enacting regulations under the statutory election laws. Colorado already has a constitution that provides for state legislative redistricting to be conducted by a bipartisan commission, and if Amendment 41 passes, as it is likely to, there will also be an independent ethics board for the state. Thus, there is precedent for electoral duties to exist outside the Secretary of State's office.
Early Judicial Review
I can understand court reluctance to get involved in elections before they take place, a problem than (3) seeks to address. Few elections are close and many problems that can be foreseen don't turn out to be very important in real life, so most cases end up being dismissed as moot. But, the negative effects of a pre-election lawsuit are much milder than those of a post-election lawsuit, so there is much to be said for this proposal as well.
Don't believe me. Hear it from an election law specialist. An alternative proposal is set forth here. He proposes:
1. Universal voter registration conducted by the federal government which issues ID cards with biometric ID (such as a fingerprint). The ID would not be required to vote, because the biometric information would be stored in a central database. Change of address cards at the U.S. Postal Service and death certificates would be cross-referenced.
2. Nonpartisan election administration. A bipartisan supermajority (say 75%) would be required to appoint a state election administrator, who in turn would appoint local election administrators. Australia and Canada are proposed as models.
3. Increase the ease with which pre-election court challenges can be filed (under doctrines such as standing and case and controversy rules), but bar challenges that could have been foreseen prior to the election which were strategically not brought.
Universal Voter Registration
I personally think it wouldn't be hard to do (1) at the state level, as opposed to the federal level, respecting the general principle that election administration is conducted by states rather than by the federal government. This would also alleviate fears of a national ID card. Interstate cooperation and U.S.P.S. cooperation could still be mandated. Indeed, government sponsored voter registration can be done at the local level even if not required and rather than producing a race to the bottom, tends to produce interjurisdiction competition to improve voter registration.
Non-Partisan Administration
I agree with the model of (2). I've spoken with judges in Michigan, who are elected locally, about whether, if there was a shift to an appointment system, they would favor local appointments or a state appointment. The consensus was that state appointments (which we have in Colorado) were better, because judges often have to rule on cases involving local governments and would still "owe" something to the parties in such cases, something much less likely to be the case with a state appointment. The same reasoning applies to elections officials.
Keep in mind that the total statewide number of elections officials is actually rather small, especially in the "off season" and that election administration doesn't very naturally fit county boundaries these days now that Baker v. Carr imposed a one man, one vote requirement on states that broke the connection between state legislative districts and county boundaries. The clerk and recorder's office is typically a small percentage of total county employment (on the order of 4% or less), and the elections division is typically a small fraction of the total office's employment, which is dominanted by the DMV and the real estate recording division.
Denver's Election Commission employs 21 permanent and temporary employees (including the executive director) who report to three election commissioners. The Commission is constrained by all of the City's elected officials and by the D.A. and the Secretary of State. Denver makes up about 1/8th of the population of the state of Colorado. Thus, it is fair to estimate that a single statewide office for elections would require about 168 employees, plus some additional employees transferred from the elections division of the Secretary of State.
Similarly, the Secretary of State's office is a small percentage of total state employment (the entire Department including the business division, notary services and bingo supervision has a $28 million budget out of a $17,025 million state budget, about 0.2%, its share coming entirely from user's fees; there are about 111 employees in the office (FTE) about 0.5% of the total state employment in Colorado), and the elections division is a small fraction of the office's total employment, about 18 people. National elections division FTE figures are available here.
It is fair to guess that fewer than 200 employees statewide could carry out out electoral functions currently carried about by local clerk and recorder's officers, election commissions and the Colorado Secretary of State, for a comparable cost to current arrangements, which is a tiny share of state and local budgets. (For comparison purposes, the State Treasurer's office in Colorado has 23 FTE employees, and the Attorney General's office has 132, while the State Auditor, who is appointed by the legislature, has 52; about a quarter of state executive branch employees are in the Department of Corrections and about a quarter are in the Department of Human Services).
Interestingly, Colorado's Constitution does not require that a county clerk and recorder administer local elections, although it does require that counties have an elected clerk and recorder. A state statute turning over all election administration duties to state government would probably be constitutional. Some of the Secretary of State's election administration duties, however, are constitutional in nature. Some of the Secretary of State's constitutional electoral duties, like transmitting election results to the General Assembly, however, could be reduced to ceremonial duties by statute, and the administration of the campaign finance system, which is the Secretary of State's responsibility, could be severed from the other obligations of the position, like enacting regulations under the statutory election laws. Colorado already has a constitution that provides for state legislative redistricting to be conducted by a bipartisan commission, and if Amendment 41 passes, as it is likely to, there will also be an independent ethics board for the state. Thus, there is precedent for electoral duties to exist outside the Secretary of State's office.
Early Judicial Review
I can understand court reluctance to get involved in elections before they take place, a problem than (3) seeks to address. Few elections are close and many problems that can be foreseen don't turn out to be very important in real life, so most cases end up being dismissed as moot. But, the negative effects of a pre-election lawsuit are much milder than those of a post-election lawsuit, so there is much to be said for this proposal as well.
06 November 2006
Dude, Pay Attention: Vote Centers! Voting Suggestions.
You live in Denver. You are registered to vote. You haven't voted yet.
There are two words that are more important than anything else to you tomorrow:
VOTE CENTERS!
Tomorrow, Tuesday, November 7, 2006 is election day. The polls open at 7 a.m. The polls close at 7 p.m.
You can go to any of the 55 vote centers in the city and vote. It doesn't matter where you live. The precinct voting place you used to go to is probably gone. Click on the link. There is a map.
You hate links? Here's the entire list:
Athmar Recreation Center 2680 W Mexico Ave
Augustana Lutheran 5000 E Alameda Ave
Barnum Recreation Center 360 Hooker St
Bear Valley Library 5171 W Dartmouth Ave
Botanic Gardens 1005 York St
Calvary Baptist 6500 E Girard Ave
Calvary Presbyterian Church 1420 S Holly St
Central Christian Church 3690 E Cherry Creek South Dr
Cherry Creek Community Church 3739 E 4th Ave
College View Recreation Center 2525 S Decatur St
Colorado Convention Center 700 14th St
Cook Park Recreation Center 7100 Cherry Creek South Dr
Corona Presbyterian Church 1205 E 8th Ave
District 2 Police Station 3921 Holly St
District 3 Police Station 1625 S University Blvd
Eisenhower Recreation Center 4300 E Dartmouth Ave
Glenarm Recreation Center 2800 Glenarm Pl
Grant Ranch School 5400 S Jay Cir
Green Valley Ranch Recreation Center 4890 Argonne Way
Hampden Library 9755 E Girard Ave
Harvard Gulch Recreation Center 550 E Iliff Ave
Harvey Park Recreation Center 2120 S Tennyson Way
Heritage Club 2020 S Monroe St
Highland Senior Center 2880 Osceola St
Johnson Rec. Center 4809 Race St
La Alma Recreation Center 1325 W 11th Ave
La Familia Recreation Center 65 S Elati St
Maltese Cross Manor 1590 Yates St
Manual High School 1700 E 28th Ave
Mile High United Way 2505 18th St
Montbello Branch Library 12955 Albrook Dr
Montbello Recreation Center 15555 E 53rd Ave
Montclair Recreation Center 729 Ulster Way
New Covenant Christian Church 825 Ivanhoe St
New Hope Baptist Church 3701 Colorado Blvd
Park Hill Methodist Church 5209 Montview Blvd
Porter Place 1001 E Yale Ave
Quigg Newton Senior Center 4430 Navajo St
Risen Christ Catholic Church 3060 S Monaco Street Pkwy
Rude Park Rec 2855 W Holden Place
Scheitler Recreation Center 5031 W 46th Ave
Schenck School 1300 S Lowell Blvd
Southwest Recreation Center 9200 W Saratoga Pl
St Philip & St James Episcopal 2797 S Lowell Blvd
St. Charles Rec. Center 3777 Lafayette St
Sunrise Assisted Living 5195 W Quincy Ave
Syracuse Plaza 4333 S Syracuse St
Tattered Cover Bookstore 1628 16th St
Tivoli Student Union 900 Auraria Pkwy
Trinity Lutheran Church 4225 W Yale Ave
University Park Methodist 2180 S University Blvd
Washington Park Recreation Center 701 S Franklin St
Wellington Webb Building 201 W Colfax Ave
Westerly Creek Elementary 8800 E. 28th Ave
Windsor Gardens-auditorium 597 S Clinton St
There weather will be fine. You have a right, by law, to skip work and go vote. There are more than 1,400 voting machines. The lines won't actually be all that bad. Bring you driver's license or state ID.
Did you skip the newspapers and blogs? Do you now feel uninformed? Do you trust me? Here's your cheat sheet:
CANDIDATES: Vote for Democrats.
JUDGES: Vote to retain them all.
BALLOT ISSUES:
E (Tax Breaks For Totally Disabled Vets): Yes.
F (Take Recall Election Deadlines Out Of Constitution): Yes.
G (Obsolete Constitutional Provisions): Yes.
H (Tax Deductions For Illegal Immigrant Compensation): No.
I (Domestic Partnerships): Yes.
J (65% On Instruction Broadly Defined): No.
K (Bring Frivilous Lawsuit v. Feds): No.
Amendment 38 (More Ballot Issues): No.
Amendment 39 (65% On Instruction Narrowly Defined): No
Amendment 40 (Judicial Term Limits): No.
Amendment 41 (Government Ethics): No.
Amendment 42 (Minimum Wage in Constitution): Yes.
Amendment 43 (Marriage in Constitution): No.
Amendment 44 (Legalize Pot): Yes.
1A (Sales Tax For Pre-School): Yes.
1B (CFO For Denver): Yes.
The ballot issues that matter most are Yes on I, No on 39, No on 40, and No on 43. Trust me on those, at least.
There are two words that are more important than anything else to you tomorrow:
VOTE CENTERS!
Tomorrow, Tuesday, November 7, 2006 is election day. The polls open at 7 a.m. The polls close at 7 p.m.
You can go to any of the 55 vote centers in the city and vote. It doesn't matter where you live. The precinct voting place you used to go to is probably gone. Click on the link. There is a map.
You hate links? Here's the entire list:
Athmar Recreation Center 2680 W Mexico Ave
Augustana Lutheran 5000 E Alameda Ave
Barnum Recreation Center 360 Hooker St
Bear Valley Library 5171 W Dartmouth Ave
Botanic Gardens 1005 York St
Calvary Baptist 6500 E Girard Ave
Calvary Presbyterian Church 1420 S Holly St
Central Christian Church 3690 E Cherry Creek South Dr
Cherry Creek Community Church 3739 E 4th Ave
College View Recreation Center 2525 S Decatur St
Colorado Convention Center 700 14th St
Cook Park Recreation Center 7100 Cherry Creek South Dr
Corona Presbyterian Church 1205 E 8th Ave
District 2 Police Station 3921 Holly St
District 3 Police Station 1625 S University Blvd
Eisenhower Recreation Center 4300 E Dartmouth Ave
Glenarm Recreation Center 2800 Glenarm Pl
Grant Ranch School 5400 S Jay Cir
Green Valley Ranch Recreation Center 4890 Argonne Way
Hampden Library 9755 E Girard Ave
Harvard Gulch Recreation Center 550 E Iliff Ave
Harvey Park Recreation Center 2120 S Tennyson Way
Heritage Club 2020 S Monroe St
Highland Senior Center 2880 Osceola St
Johnson Rec. Center 4809 Race St
La Alma Recreation Center 1325 W 11th Ave
La Familia Recreation Center 65 S Elati St
Maltese Cross Manor 1590 Yates St
Manual High School 1700 E 28th Ave
Mile High United Way 2505 18th St
Montbello Branch Library 12955 Albrook Dr
Montbello Recreation Center 15555 E 53rd Ave
Montclair Recreation Center 729 Ulster Way
New Covenant Christian Church 825 Ivanhoe St
New Hope Baptist Church 3701 Colorado Blvd
Park Hill Methodist Church 5209 Montview Blvd
Porter Place 1001 E Yale Ave
Quigg Newton Senior Center 4430 Navajo St
Risen Christ Catholic Church 3060 S Monaco Street Pkwy
Rude Park Rec 2855 W Holden Place
Scheitler Recreation Center 5031 W 46th Ave
Schenck School 1300 S Lowell Blvd
Southwest Recreation Center 9200 W Saratoga Pl
St Philip & St James Episcopal 2797 S Lowell Blvd
St. Charles Rec. Center 3777 Lafayette St
Sunrise Assisted Living 5195 W Quincy Ave
Syracuse Plaza 4333 S Syracuse St
Tattered Cover Bookstore 1628 16th St
Tivoli Student Union 900 Auraria Pkwy
Trinity Lutheran Church 4225 W Yale Ave
University Park Methodist 2180 S University Blvd
Washington Park Recreation Center 701 S Franklin St
Wellington Webb Building 201 W Colfax Ave
Westerly Creek Elementary 8800 E. 28th Ave
Windsor Gardens-auditorium 597 S Clinton St
There weather will be fine. You have a right, by law, to skip work and go vote. There are more than 1,400 voting machines. The lines won't actually be all that bad. Bring you driver's license or state ID.
Did you skip the newspapers and blogs? Do you now feel uninformed? Do you trust me? Here's your cheat sheet:
CANDIDATES: Vote for Democrats.
JUDGES: Vote to retain them all.
BALLOT ISSUES:
E (Tax Breaks For Totally Disabled Vets): Yes.
F (Take Recall Election Deadlines Out Of Constitution): Yes.
G (Obsolete Constitutional Provisions): Yes.
H (Tax Deductions For Illegal Immigrant Compensation): No.
I (Domestic Partnerships): Yes.
J (65% On Instruction Broadly Defined): No.
K (Bring Frivilous Lawsuit v. Feds): No.
Amendment 38 (More Ballot Issues): No.
Amendment 39 (65% On Instruction Narrowly Defined): No
Amendment 40 (Judicial Term Limits): No.
Amendment 41 (Government Ethics): No.
Amendment 42 (Minimum Wage in Constitution): Yes.
Amendment 43 (Marriage in Constitution): No.
Amendment 44 (Legalize Pot): Yes.
1A (Sales Tax For Pre-School): Yes.
1B (CFO For Denver): Yes.
The ballot issues that matter most are Yes on I, No on 39, No on 40, and No on 43. Trust me on those, at least.
Down Ticket Race Polling and Analysis
While this isn't exactly breaking news, Colorado Pols recapped the latest polling in the downticket statewide races last week. All three have large numbers of undecided voters.
In the State Treasurer's race, Democrat Cary Kennedy leads Republican Mark Hillman 44-35. Kennedy needs one-third of the undecided vote to win. While Ritter's coat tails won't necessarily be long, there is little to suggest that Kennedy will have trouble picking up, at least, a third of the undecided vote, so she is likely to join Bill Ritter in the capitol.
In the Secretary of State's race, Democrat Ken Gordon trails Republican Mike Coffman 38-41. Gordon needs a little more than 57% of the undecided vote to win. Gordon needs to benefit from Bill Ritter's coat tails, or the Democratic wave of this election season to win, but he certainly has a real shot at winning this race. It is still a toss up.
In the Attorney General's race, Democrat Fern O'Brien trails Republican John Suthers 32-38. This would generally mean that O'Brien needs 60% of the undecided vote to win. Her odds are likely not that good, however. The Libertarian candidate has been polling about 7% in the race. While this draws mostly from John Suthers' support, it also means that there are really fewer undecided voters in the race than it appears. So, realistically, she needs two-thirds of the undecided vote to win. This is a long shot, but not beyond the realm of possibility, if the stars align in her favor tomorrow. Many Democrats will secure two-thirds of the unaffiliated vote, and undecided voters tend to favor challengers. But, partisan instincts in Colorado weigh against O'Brien, and most of the Democrats securing two-thirds of the unaffiliated vote have well funded campaigns and are leading in the polls overall.
In the State Treasurer's race, Democrat Cary Kennedy leads Republican Mark Hillman 44-35. Kennedy needs one-third of the undecided vote to win. While Ritter's coat tails won't necessarily be long, there is little to suggest that Kennedy will have trouble picking up, at least, a third of the undecided vote, so she is likely to join Bill Ritter in the capitol.
In the Secretary of State's race, Democrat Ken Gordon trails Republican Mike Coffman 38-41. Gordon needs a little more than 57% of the undecided vote to win. Gordon needs to benefit from Bill Ritter's coat tails, or the Democratic wave of this election season to win, but he certainly has a real shot at winning this race. It is still a toss up.
In the Attorney General's race, Democrat Fern O'Brien trails Republican John Suthers 32-38. This would generally mean that O'Brien needs 60% of the undecided vote to win. Her odds are likely not that good, however. The Libertarian candidate has been polling about 7% in the race. While this draws mostly from John Suthers' support, it also means that there are really fewer undecided voters in the race than it appears. So, realistically, she needs two-thirds of the undecided vote to win. This is a long shot, but not beyond the realm of possibility, if the stars align in her favor tomorrow. Many Democrats will secure two-thirds of the unaffiliated vote, and undecided voters tend to favor challengers. But, partisan instincts in Colorado weigh against O'Brien, and most of the Democrats securing two-thirds of the unaffiliated vote have well funded campaigns and are leading in the polls overall.
03 November 2006
Florida Amendment 3
While Colorado voters will be considering, and probably rejecting, Amendment 38 designed to make it easier to get issues on the ballot this year, Flordia voters will be considering Amendment 3.
Florida Amendment 3 would require 60% support of the voters to pass a constitutional amendment, rather than the current 50%. Two polls taken in September showed it on track to passage. Zogby for Miami Herald found in its September poll that the proposal was leading 67% yes, 27% no. A Mason-Dixon poll in September found the proposal leading 44% yes, 23% no.
A blue ribbon commission in Colorado looking at changes important to the state's economic development and finding that poor public finance decisions driven by voter initiatives (like TABOR, Gallagher and Amendment 23) were an important barrier to the state's economic growth proposed that Colorado take a similar step.
If Florida Amendment 3 passes in there, supporters of the concept that it should be harder to amend the state constitution than it is to enact a statute might be emboldened to place it before Colorado voters in a future election.
There theory is that major bedrock rules of the entire system set forth in the state constitution ought to have a wider consensus support than a mere 50%+1 of the votes cast on a single day. The downside of the proposal for good government advocates is that it further entrenches the clutter that is in the state constitution now, making it harder to strip out existing provisions.
Florida Amendment 3 would require 60% support of the voters to pass a constitutional amendment, rather than the current 50%. Two polls taken in September showed it on track to passage. Zogby for Miami Herald found in its September poll that the proposal was leading 67% yes, 27% no. A Mason-Dixon poll in September found the proposal leading 44% yes, 23% no.
A blue ribbon commission in Colorado looking at changes important to the state's economic development and finding that poor public finance decisions driven by voter initiatives (like TABOR, Gallagher and Amendment 23) were an important barrier to the state's economic growth proposed that Colorado take a similar step.
If Florida Amendment 3 passes in there, supporters of the concept that it should be harder to amend the state constitution than it is to enact a statute might be emboldened to place it before Colorado voters in a future election.
There theory is that major bedrock rules of the entire system set forth in the state constitution ought to have a wider consensus support than a mere 50%+1 of the votes cast on a single day. The downside of the proposal for good government advocates is that it further entrenches the clutter that is in the state constitution now, making it harder to strip out existing provisions.
02 November 2006
Safe Election Predictions
If you are going to be a prophet, it pays to stick with the easy predictions first. I offer you these today.
National:
1. Democrats will win a majority of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
2. Democrats will win more seats in the U.S. Senate.
3. Ohio's next Governor will be a Democrat.
4. New York's next Governor will be a Democrat.
Colorado:
1. Democrat Bill Ritter will defeat Republican Bob Beauprez by a comfortable margin in the Governor's race.
2. Democrat Ed Perlmutter will defeat Republican Rick O'Donnell in the 7th Congressional District race.
3. Amendment 38 (Petitions) will be defeated.
4. Amendment 40 (Judicial Term Limits) will be defeated.
5. Amendment 41 (Government Ethics) will pass.
6. Amendment 44 (Marijuana Possession) will fail.
7. Referendum G (Obsolete Constitutional Provisions) will pass.
8. Democrat John Salazar will defeat Scott Tipton in the 3rd Congressional District race.
9. Democrat Diana DeGette will defeat her Green Party opponent in the 1st Congressional District.
10. Reform Candidate Eric Eidness will not win the 4th Congressional District race, despite having received many newspaper endorsements and doing well in the polls for a third party candidate.
11. Democrat Mark Udall will prevail over token Republican opposition in the 2nd Congressional District.
12. Voter turnout will be lower than in a Presidential election year, but will be at levels at least comparable to the 2002 election.
13. The percentage of votes cast absentee and by early voting in 2006 will be greater than in 2002.
14. All judges other than Court of Appeals Judge Marquez will be retained.
Denver:
1. Referendum 1B (Financial Reorganization) will pass.
Of course, the flip side of the easy predictions, are the races to watch. They are:
Toss Up
Secretary of State
State Treasurer
Amendment 39 (School Spending)
Amendment 43 (Marriage)
Referendum I (Domestic Partnerships)
Leans Democratic
State School Board District 7
State House Control
Leans Republican
Attorney General
CU Regent At Large
4th Congressional District
5th Congressional District
State School Board District 4
Leans Pass:
Amendment 42 (Minimum Wage)
Referendum E (Veteran's Property Taxes)
Referendum F (Recall Deadlines)
Referendum H (Tax Deduction For Illegal Immigrant Compensation)
Referendum J (School Spending)
Denver Referendum 1A (Preschool)
Leans Fail:
Referendum K (Immigration Lawsuit v. Feds)
Likely Democratic
State Senate Control
Likely Republican
6th Congressional District
CU Regent District 3
Likely Retention
Court of Appeals Judge Marquez
For what it's worth, the race that most scares me is Amendment 39. The downside of this for Colorado would really be significant, and it is far too close to winning for comfort. None of the other close ballot issues would have such a profound negative impact on the state.
National:
1. Democrats will win a majority of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
2. Democrats will win more seats in the U.S. Senate.
3. Ohio's next Governor will be a Democrat.
4. New York's next Governor will be a Democrat.
Colorado:
1. Democrat Bill Ritter will defeat Republican Bob Beauprez by a comfortable margin in the Governor's race.
2. Democrat Ed Perlmutter will defeat Republican Rick O'Donnell in the 7th Congressional District race.
3. Amendment 38 (Petitions) will be defeated.
4. Amendment 40 (Judicial Term Limits) will be defeated.
5. Amendment 41 (Government Ethics) will pass.
6. Amendment 44 (Marijuana Possession) will fail.
7. Referendum G (Obsolete Constitutional Provisions) will pass.
8. Democrat John Salazar will defeat Scott Tipton in the 3rd Congressional District race.
9. Democrat Diana DeGette will defeat her Green Party opponent in the 1st Congressional District.
10. Reform Candidate Eric Eidness will not win the 4th Congressional District race, despite having received many newspaper endorsements and doing well in the polls for a third party candidate.
11. Democrat Mark Udall will prevail over token Republican opposition in the 2nd Congressional District.
12. Voter turnout will be lower than in a Presidential election year, but will be at levels at least comparable to the 2002 election.
13. The percentage of votes cast absentee and by early voting in 2006 will be greater than in 2002.
14. All judges other than Court of Appeals Judge Marquez will be retained.
Denver:
1. Referendum 1B (Financial Reorganization) will pass.
Of course, the flip side of the easy predictions, are the races to watch. They are:
Toss Up
Secretary of State
State Treasurer
Amendment 39 (School Spending)
Amendment 43 (Marriage)
Referendum I (Domestic Partnerships)
Leans Democratic
State School Board District 7
State House Control
Leans Republican
Attorney General
CU Regent At Large
4th Congressional District
5th Congressional District
State School Board District 4
Leans Pass:
Amendment 42 (Minimum Wage)
Referendum E (Veteran's Property Taxes)
Referendum F (Recall Deadlines)
Referendum H (Tax Deduction For Illegal Immigrant Compensation)
Referendum J (School Spending)
Denver Referendum 1A (Preschool)
Leans Fail:
Referendum K (Immigration Lawsuit v. Feds)
Likely Democratic
State Senate Control
Likely Republican
6th Congressional District
CU Regent District 3
Likely Retention
Court of Appeals Judge Marquez
For what it's worth, the race that most scares me is Amendment 39. The downside of this for Colorado would really be significant, and it is far too close to winning for comfort. None of the other close ballot issues would have such a profound negative impact on the state.
01 November 2006
Down Ticket Voter Apathy
Polls show that the races for State Treasurer and for Secretary of State in Colorado are very close. This is, once again, proof of the power of voter apathy, and of why these largely ministerial posts shouldn't be run by partisan elected officials, whom voters select largely based on party identification.
State Treasurer
The state treasurer has virtually no policy making authority, so political experience and partisan bent is not of great importance to doing the job. The treasurer does not propose or approve legislation. Instead, the treasurer hands out abandoned property to its rightful owners, confirms that checks written by the rest of the legislative branch have a legislative basis, invests state money, and supervises the public offering of bonds by the state. The state treasurer does not collect taxes or set tax policy, and does not authorize spending or prepare the state budget, although the state treasurer must be familiar with the state budget.
In this race, Republican Mark Hillman is facing off against Democrat Cary Kennedy.
Mark Hillman has been a part-time farmer for the past seven years, and before that he was a small town newspaper reporter. He isn't a college graduate, although he has attended some college.
Cary Kennedy "earned a masters degree in public administration from Columbia University in 1993 and a Juris Doctor from the University of Denver College of Law in 1995. Cary is a member of the Colorado bar. Cary worked in the Governor's Office of State Planning and Budgeting[.]"
Simply put, there isn't a medium or large sized private business in the state that would hire Hillman to be a CFO, and no merit system appointment in a governmental agency would either. In contrast, an M.P.A. is the government equivalent of an M.B.A., which is a common private sector credential for a CFO, and a J.D. is a not uncommon credential for a CFO. Hillman wouldn't even get an interview in the real world. In the political system, however, he now has even odds of getting the job, because in the absence of strong pressures otherwise, Colorado voters lean slightly Republican.
Without the party labels, no one would even consider Hillman for this post.
Secretary of State
Republican Mike Coffman is facing Democrat Ken Gordon in the race for Secretary of State. While this puts the winner in charge of corporate filings, uniform commercial code filings, notary licenses, and bingo licenses, the Secretary of State's race is almost always about the part of the job that involves impartially running fair elections in the state.
Mike Coffman is a convicted election law violator. Ken Gordon isn't. Does anything else really matter after that? There are plenty of people who could have been nominated for this post. Mike Coffman was an odd choice to be that nominee.
Bottom Line
This year, the Democrats are clearly superior candidates in the races for state treasurer and secretary of state. But, in the long run, the more important conclusion to draw is that neither post should be a partisan elected office.
State Treasurer
The state treasurer has virtually no policy making authority, so political experience and partisan bent is not of great importance to doing the job. The treasurer does not propose or approve legislation. Instead, the treasurer hands out abandoned property to its rightful owners, confirms that checks written by the rest of the legislative branch have a legislative basis, invests state money, and supervises the public offering of bonds by the state. The state treasurer does not collect taxes or set tax policy, and does not authorize spending or prepare the state budget, although the state treasurer must be familiar with the state budget.
In this race, Republican Mark Hillman is facing off against Democrat Cary Kennedy.
Mark Hillman has been a part-time farmer for the past seven years, and before that he was a small town newspaper reporter. He isn't a college graduate, although he has attended some college.
Cary Kennedy "earned a masters degree in public administration from Columbia University in 1993 and a Juris Doctor from the University of Denver College of Law in 1995. Cary is a member of the Colorado bar. Cary worked in the Governor's Office of State Planning and Budgeting[.]"
Simply put, there isn't a medium or large sized private business in the state that would hire Hillman to be a CFO, and no merit system appointment in a governmental agency would either. In contrast, an M.P.A. is the government equivalent of an M.B.A., which is a common private sector credential for a CFO, and a J.D. is a not uncommon credential for a CFO. Hillman wouldn't even get an interview in the real world. In the political system, however, he now has even odds of getting the job, because in the absence of strong pressures otherwise, Colorado voters lean slightly Republican.
Without the party labels, no one would even consider Hillman for this post.
Secretary of State
Republican Mike Coffman is facing Democrat Ken Gordon in the race for Secretary of State. While this puts the winner in charge of corporate filings, uniform commercial code filings, notary licenses, and bingo licenses, the Secretary of State's race is almost always about the part of the job that involves impartially running fair elections in the state.
Mike Coffman is a convicted election law violator. Ken Gordon isn't. Does anything else really matter after that? There are plenty of people who could have been nominated for this post. Mike Coffman was an odd choice to be that nominee.
Bottom Line
This year, the Democrats are clearly superior candidates in the races for state treasurer and secretary of state. But, in the long run, the more important conclusion to draw is that neither post should be a partisan elected office.
Wedgie Issues
Lots of Christian Right senanigans are overlooked by Republican voters when they don't go anywhere. But, just as Republicans turned against Creationists on the Kansas School Board once they got in control, they will turn against the anti-sex factions deceptively known as pro-life in the GOP once the implications of their agenda gets out.
For example, they are pushing hard to continue funding for a federal program to discourage unmarried adults from having sex -- not just preventing them from getting pregnant or getting STDs mind you, but from having sex. Many in the pro-life movement apparently think every sperm is sacred. They are against oral contraceptives. They are against emergency contraception, even for rape victims who report to emergency rooms. They would like to undermine faith in condoms, a position that caused them to oppose a vaccine that can prevent HPV, a leading sexually transmitted disease which is less effectively prevented by condoms than many other STDs. This may play in the Vatican. It has no place in modern American life. Twenty-nine years olds are not expected to be chaste in our culture.
Creationism and opposition to contraception are wedgie issues for Republicans. They divide their party and undermine themselves by pushing them. And, these aren't the only GOP wedgie issues.
Immigration is another issue that deeply divides Republicans between the deport 'em all Tancredo wing, and the cheap labor business leaders, while it unifies Democrats who generally support a middle road of some form of earned citizenship for long term undocumented immigrants, more legal immigration in high demand fields, tougher employer sanctions, and more consistent deportation of immigrants who have committed felonies. Yet, Republicans are pushing the immigration issue hard this election cycle.
So is stem cell research. The "pro-life" wing of the Republican party thinks that stem cell research needs to be prohibited and carefully regulated. Most other Americans, including economicly oriented Republicans, independents and Democrats, favor giving doctors a freer hand to find cures to diseases and don't see epic moral differences between the status quo of incinerating human embryos created to help couples have test tube babies, and using those same human embryos for life saving medical research. Michael J. Fox's TV spot on that issue is probably the most effective in terms of proven impact on voter preferences this election cycle.
So is the minimum wage. Democrats, moderates and many rank and file Republicans overwhelmingly favor raising the minimum wage, which is at an all time low in relative terms. But, economically oriented Republicans are die hard in their insistance that keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour,despite inflation's impact year after year, is necessary to prevent unemployment, despite less than compelling evidence that this really happens to any great degree.
So is opposition to importing prescription drugs from Canada. The argument that Canadian drugs are not as safe as American drugs, even though they are often exactly the same drug made in exactly the same factory, doesn't impress anyone but die hard pharmacutical industry protectionists, yet it is an stance the some in the GOP cling to while others have recognized that it is a lost cause. In the same vein, few outside the big busines wing of the GOP see any plausible reason for prohibiting Medicare from negotiating for cheaper prices on the drugs it buys for its beneficiaries.
Iraq has become a wedgie issue too. Democrats and independents want a national strategy that involves drawing down our forces in good order and eventually leaving Iraq, under the leadership of someone other than Secretary of Defense Rumsfield. President Bush wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely and is making no visible plans to withdraw or acknowledge that what we are doing now isn't working. Republicans are divided between the emerging national consensus and loyalty to President Bush.
Republicans devoted a lot of time and energy to developing a conservative intelligensia outside of academia, in which much of the conservative agenda is, often rightfully, viewed as fringe scholarship. On the whole this was good for their party and has changed American views on a variety of issues. But, they have become blinded by their own ideology, and lost touch with the American public in the process.
For example, they are pushing hard to continue funding for a federal program to discourage unmarried adults from having sex -- not just preventing them from getting pregnant or getting STDs mind you, but from having sex. Many in the pro-life movement apparently think every sperm is sacred. They are against oral contraceptives. They are against emergency contraception, even for rape victims who report to emergency rooms. They would like to undermine faith in condoms, a position that caused them to oppose a vaccine that can prevent HPV, a leading sexually transmitted disease which is less effectively prevented by condoms than many other STDs. This may play in the Vatican. It has no place in modern American life. Twenty-nine years olds are not expected to be chaste in our culture.
Creationism and opposition to contraception are wedgie issues for Republicans. They divide their party and undermine themselves by pushing them. And, these aren't the only GOP wedgie issues.
Immigration is another issue that deeply divides Republicans between the deport 'em all Tancredo wing, and the cheap labor business leaders, while it unifies Democrats who generally support a middle road of some form of earned citizenship for long term undocumented immigrants, more legal immigration in high demand fields, tougher employer sanctions, and more consistent deportation of immigrants who have committed felonies. Yet, Republicans are pushing the immigration issue hard this election cycle.
So is stem cell research. The "pro-life" wing of the Republican party thinks that stem cell research needs to be prohibited and carefully regulated. Most other Americans, including economicly oriented Republicans, independents and Democrats, favor giving doctors a freer hand to find cures to diseases and don't see epic moral differences between the status quo of incinerating human embryos created to help couples have test tube babies, and using those same human embryos for life saving medical research. Michael J. Fox's TV spot on that issue is probably the most effective in terms of proven impact on voter preferences this election cycle.
So is the minimum wage. Democrats, moderates and many rank and file Republicans overwhelmingly favor raising the minimum wage, which is at an all time low in relative terms. But, economically oriented Republicans are die hard in their insistance that keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour,despite inflation's impact year after year, is necessary to prevent unemployment, despite less than compelling evidence that this really happens to any great degree.
So is opposition to importing prescription drugs from Canada. The argument that Canadian drugs are not as safe as American drugs, even though they are often exactly the same drug made in exactly the same factory, doesn't impress anyone but die hard pharmacutical industry protectionists, yet it is an stance the some in the GOP cling to while others have recognized that it is a lost cause. In the same vein, few outside the big busines wing of the GOP see any plausible reason for prohibiting Medicare from negotiating for cheaper prices on the drugs it buys for its beneficiaries.
Iraq has become a wedgie issue too. Democrats and independents want a national strategy that involves drawing down our forces in good order and eventually leaving Iraq, under the leadership of someone other than Secretary of Defense Rumsfield. President Bush wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely and is making no visible plans to withdraw or acknowledge that what we are doing now isn't working. Republicans are divided between the emerging national consensus and loyalty to President Bush.
Republicans devoted a lot of time and energy to developing a conservative intelligensia outside of academia, in which much of the conservative agenda is, often rightfully, viewed as fringe scholarship. On the whole this was good for their party and has changed American views on a variety of issues. But, they have become blinded by their own ideology, and lost touch with the American public in the process.
31 October 2006
South Dakota Abortion Ban Poll
A referendum on a proposal to completely ban abortion in South Dakota is currently trailing in a Mason-Dixon opinion poll by 42-52, in a survey of 800 likely voters (margin of error 3.5%), less than two weeks before election day. An earlier poll had shown the measure trailing 39-47.
The lack of an exception for rape or incest in the bill is driving opposition in the conservative state, even though these cases make up only a small percentage of all abortions in the state.
The bill would almost certainly be unconstitutional on its face under Roe v. Wade and likely would never be implemented. The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which includes South Dakota, yesterday sustained a preliminary injunction barring implimentation of a much more moderate measure in the state. South Dakota has only one abortion clinic. The purpose of the bill is to offer the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to reverse Roe v. Wade, something its recent abortion jurisprudence shows it has no intention of doing.
Rape and incest reached epidemic levels, in contrast, on Pitcairn Island where the convictions of six men from the island on those charges two years ago has survived a final appeal.
The men had argued that rape and incest were not violations of the law on the island, which was settled by the Bounty's mutineers about a century ago.
The lack of an exception for rape or incest in the bill is driving opposition in the conservative state, even though these cases make up only a small percentage of all abortions in the state.
The bill would almost certainly be unconstitutional on its face under Roe v. Wade and likely would never be implemented. The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which includes South Dakota, yesterday sustained a preliminary injunction barring implimentation of a much more moderate measure in the state. South Dakota has only one abortion clinic. The purpose of the bill is to offer the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to reverse Roe v. Wade, something its recent abortion jurisprudence shows it has no intention of doing.
Rape and incest reached epidemic levels, in contrast, on Pitcairn Island where the convictions of six men from the island on those charges two years ago has survived a final appeal.
Only 50 people remain living on Pitcairn, which can only be reached by boat. The convicted men make up a quarter of the island's adult males.
The men had argued that rape and incest were not violations of the law on the island, which was settled by the Bounty's mutineers about a century ago.
Something's Rotten In Ohio
Ohio election officials are disqualifying thousands of ballots because the wrong number from a driver's license is recorded on them. A U.S. district judge overruled the process. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, for now, has allowed these disqualifications to go forward. There have also been questionable removals of voters from the voter registration rolls.
The timing couldn't be worse.
The timing couldn't be worse.
Halloween 2006
The dog and the vampire marched off to the school parade this morning with their graveyard cake made of whipped cream and graham crackers and crumbled Oreos.
This evening we will, once again, greet trick or treaters with candy. Their neighbors will shower my children with candy and praise because most of the other kids who come to their doors won't be from the neighborhood, while mine, because they often play in the front yard, are known to one and all.
Halloween has become a celebration of individual expression and candy, which is mostly a good thing.
And, who celebrates All Saint's Day? Even hard core liturgical Christians who wear suits to church, are annointed with ashes from the palm leaves of Palm Sunday on Ash Wednesday, go to church every day during Holy Week, light Advent candles in the weeks leading up to Christmas, say grace at meals in restaurants, and can tell you when Pentacost starts and ends don't do that, especially when it falls on a Wednesday. O.K., maybe it gets some token observance at Catholic schools (and maybe even Epsicopal ones). Who knows? There may even be a septegenarian nun left in one of them that assigns Saint reports to her charges, and the day may be noticed by the die hard Catholics to go to mass every morning before work.
Likewise, the only people who take the demonic or satanic dimensions of Halloween seriously are the kind of people who feel a need to ban Harry Potter from the schools, worry that instrumental music in church could send you to hell, and take the Biblical notion that women must submit to their husbands very seriously.
For 98%+ of the population, it is a time for children to dress up and dreaming about what you will be when you grow up. Alas, job openings for wizards, Princesses, and ninjas are rather more scarce than the demand. Parents worried about excess sugar far exceed those concerned about its metaphysical dimensions.
The tricking has declined to very low levels. Devil's Night, always a nervous evening in Deroit, didn't even merit a mention in today's Detroit Free Press. Then again, in the second most dangerous city in the nation, who needs an excuse for crime anymore (incidentally, I lived for about a year and a half in Amherst, New York, which is mostly suburban with a little bit of a main street near a college campus, the second safest city in the nation, the real estate prices there are miserably low anyway, like many very safe suburbs of Detroit it is near the not so safe central city of Buffalo, New York).
As one researcher put it:
Flint, another post-industrial Michigan city is number 3. Twenty years ago, General Motors employed 876,000 people. Now, it has 335,000 and is laying people off (at least 30,000 hourly and thousands of salaried workers). Part of this is due to the 1999 spin off of now bankrupt Delphi, which currently has about 185,000 employees and is also laying people off (more than 30,000 are planned by 2008, including about half of its 50,000 U.S. workers). Ford and Chrysler (since merged into Dailmer Chrysler) have faced lay offs as well and continue to do so. Ford is laying off 30,000 people.
We are a week away from the 2006 midterm elections. Mostly, this year will be a Republican nightmare. But, there are initiatives on the ballot, like Amendment 39 in Colorado, which would be horrific for Colorado schools, forcing them to slash funding on support staff like school nurses and guidance counselors and bus drivers. And, the downticket statewide races are very close.
This evening we will, once again, greet trick or treaters with candy. Their neighbors will shower my children with candy and praise because most of the other kids who come to their doors won't be from the neighborhood, while mine, because they often play in the front yard, are known to one and all.
Halloween has become a celebration of individual expression and candy, which is mostly a good thing.
And, who celebrates All Saint's Day? Even hard core liturgical Christians who wear suits to church, are annointed with ashes from the palm leaves of Palm Sunday on Ash Wednesday, go to church every day during Holy Week, light Advent candles in the weeks leading up to Christmas, say grace at meals in restaurants, and can tell you when Pentacost starts and ends don't do that, especially when it falls on a Wednesday. O.K., maybe it gets some token observance at Catholic schools (and maybe even Epsicopal ones). Who knows? There may even be a septegenarian nun left in one of them that assigns Saint reports to her charges, and the day may be noticed by the die hard Catholics to go to mass every morning before work.
Likewise, the only people who take the demonic or satanic dimensions of Halloween seriously are the kind of people who feel a need to ban Harry Potter from the schools, worry that instrumental music in church could send you to hell, and take the Biblical notion that women must submit to their husbands very seriously.
For 98%+ of the population, it is a time for children to dress up and dreaming about what you will be when you grow up. Alas, job openings for wizards, Princesses, and ninjas are rather more scarce than the demand. Parents worried about excess sugar far exceed those concerned about its metaphysical dimensions.
The tricking has declined to very low levels. Devil's Night, always a nervous evening in Deroit, didn't even merit a mention in today's Detroit Free Press. Then again, in the second most dangerous city in the nation, who needs an excuse for crime anymore (incidentally, I lived for about a year and a half in Amherst, New York, which is mostly suburban with a little bit of a main street near a college campus, the second safest city in the nation, the real estate prices there are miserably low anyway, like many very safe suburbs of Detroit it is near the not so safe central city of Buffalo, New York).
As one researcher put it:
Year in and year out, it's a red flag for Detroit. This ranking each year shows that "Sorry, you aren't getting better." I'm sure it's not what people who are trying to improve Detroit want to hear, but it's reality.
Flint, another post-industrial Michigan city is number 3. Twenty years ago, General Motors employed 876,000 people. Now, it has 335,000 and is laying people off (at least 30,000 hourly and thousands of salaried workers). Part of this is due to the 1999 spin off of now bankrupt Delphi, which currently has about 185,000 employees and is also laying people off (more than 30,000 are planned by 2008, including about half of its 50,000 U.S. workers). Ford and Chrysler (since merged into Dailmer Chrysler) have faced lay offs as well and continue to do so. Ford is laying off 30,000 people.
We are a week away from the 2006 midterm elections. Mostly, this year will be a Republican nightmare. But, there are initiatives on the ballot, like Amendment 39 in Colorado, which would be horrific for Colorado schools, forcing them to slash funding on support staff like school nurses and guidance counselors and bus drivers. And, the downticket statewide races are very close.
27 October 2006
Nervousness Confirmed
My worries about the New Jersey domestic partnership case's impact on Colorado has been coroborated. The Grand Junction Sentinel has decided to endorse a "Yes" vote on Amendment 43 (constitutional "one man, one woman" marriage definition), reversing a previous "No" endorsement.
Anne McGihon on Ballot Issues
Anne McGihon, a Democratic who represents Colorado's House District 3 in the Colorado General Assembly, and my professional colleague, has provided her ballot issue recommendations to her e-mail list, and I am providing it here to a larger audience:
We agree on the vast majority of those issues, although I personally, although weakly, favor Amendment 44.
I have promised to send out my take on the various ballot issues, and retention of judges. In general, if you have not read and understood a ballot issue, please vote NO. You may read about the State ballot issues in your Bluebook. This year’s Bluebook is hard to miss because it is bigger than usual!
Referred measures (these are the ones with the letters) have been considered by the General Assembly and at least 2/3s of the members have voted to allow the measure to go to the ballot. That does not mean a legislator agrees with the issue, but agreed that the voters should have their say on the issue.
Amendments are citizen initiatives (the numbered ones), and are petition driven measures. This year’s measures affect both the State Constitution and statutes.
Ref E allows for a property tax credit for completely disabled veterans. That is about 2200 citizens in Colorado. You decide.
Ref F takes recall deadlines out of the State Constitution. It is fine with me.
Ref G. deletes obsolete Constitutional provisions. This is also fine with me.
Ref H bars the deduction from state income tax of payroll to illegal immigrants. You decide.
Ref I allow for domestic partnerships in Colorado. This law protects the legal rights of couples not allowed to marry. It protects the children of couples not allowed to marry. I support Ref I.
Ref J addresses the allocation of funding for schools and is the preferred solution over Amendment 39. I do not support this measure or Amendment 39, as I believe our school districts should be governed by locally elected school boards dealing with local issues.
Ref K requires the Attorney General to sue the United States Government to recapture state monies spent on illegal immigrants. Such a lawsuit may have symbolic value but is not likely to prevail. You decide.
Now to the Amendments. Only one of these is a proposed statutory amendment and the rest affect the State Constitution. Generally, I am opposed to amendments to the State Constitution.
Amendment 38 would make it easier for citizens’ initiatives to get on the ballot. It is already easy enough – just look at how many Amendments there are on the ballot this year!
VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 38.
Amendment 39 is the so-called “65% solution,” mandating how local school districts allocate their spending. Again, it is a state mandate on local school boards, and puts important school services at-risk in almost all school districts.
VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 39.
Amendment 40 would push out good judges for no reason. Colorado already has a process for judges with checks and balances, accountability and discipline measures, mandatory retirement at age 72 and retention votes by the people. More than 100 organizations and people in leadership positions across the state and across party lines publicly oppose Amendment 40. Every major daily newspaper has come out against this bad idea. And, for the first time in history, Governors Owens, Romer, Lamm and Vanderhoof came together to warn Coloradans about the consequences of this measure. Both the Democratic and Republican candidates for Attorney General also oppose the measure.
VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 40.
Amendment 41 applies to all public employees from the Governor, to the firefighter, to the janitor, or to anyone with a state contract. It is a ban on gifts from anyone, not just lobbyists, to any state employee or a member of their family. Because Amendment 41 is a constitutional amendment, the General Assembly cannot “polish” it. While lobbying reform is important, it should not be locked into Colorado’s constitution where there is little flexibility to change the law to correspond with the ebb and flow of public policy and the needs of the times. I support limiting or banning gifts from lobbyists. But Amendment 41 just creates another inflexible and unworkable bureaucracy.
VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 41.
Amendment 42 is the minimum wage initiative. It would require employers to pay $6.85 an hour to hourly employees, which will be adjusted for inflation in the future. (The current minimum wage $5.15.) This is the difference between earning an annual salary below the federal poverty level and earning a salary above the federal poverty level. While I wish this was not a Constitutional Amendment, I support it because it is the right thing for Colorado workers.
VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 42.
Amendment 43 is a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. This duplicative of established and existing state law. It is therefore redundant and unnecessary.
VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 43.
Amendment 44 is a proposed amendment to Colorado statutes which would legalize possession by a person 21 years and older of less than an ounce of marijuana in a private setting. Of course, this would remain illegal under federal law. In my experience, having contradictory state and federal law sends a confusing message. I also respect the strong opposition to this measure communicated to me by law enforcement.
VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 44.
RETENTION OF JUDGES
As a member of the Colorado Bar, I urge a YES vote on retention of all the judges on this year’s ballot. The Judicial Performance Commission conducts a complete and thorough survey of the performance of each judge by interviewing attorneys and other judges. All of the judges received favorable reviews.
You may have read about the movement to remove Judge Marquez. I especially urge a YES vote for Judge Marquez, as he received overwhelmingly favorable reviews from the Bench and the Bar.
We agree on the vast majority of those issues, although I personally, although weakly, favor Amendment 44.
The Musgrave v. Paccione Debate
Michael Shiavo, in a recommended diary at Daily Kos, related the behind the scenes action at yesterday's Musgrave v. Paccione debate.
Simply put, his mere presence unnerved Musgrave and helped induce Musgrave to leave immediately afterwards, while Paccione shook hands and answered questions afterwards.
Simply put, his mere presence unnerved Musgrave and helped induce Musgrave to leave immediately afterwards, while Paccione shook hands and answered questions afterwards.
26 October 2006
Powerful Ads Don't Have To Be Flashy.
Colorado Lib highlights an advertisement (available via YouTube) against Marilyn Musgrave's 4th Congressional District candidacy highlighting her failure to support diabled veterans in Congress and her deceptive ads. It was probably the cheapest ad to produce out there today. But, this doesn't stop it from having an impact.
Nervous About I, 43 and CD-4
New Jersey's highest court yesterday ruled that gay and lesbian couples are entitled under the state constitution to legal rights associated with marriage and gave the state legislature six months to pass legislation to that effect, a ruling similar to one made during Howard Dean's tenure as Governor, in Vermont.
From my perspective here in Colorado, the timing could have been better and I'm nervous. Colorado has two ballot measures relevant to the New Jersey court's ruling before voters who are voting absentee and early voting as I write, in an election that concludes on November 7.
Referendum I would enact a state domestic partnership statute, similar to the one mandated by courts in Vermont and New Jersey. Amendment 43 would put a one man, one woman definition of marriage into the state constitution.
Initial polling showed that voters favored both measures, although Referendum I was considerably more popular than Amendment 43 which was looking like the usual pre-election slump in support for ballot measures might bring it a narrow defeat. In other words, steady as she goes looked like a good campaign strategy.
Now, the question is, will the New Jersey decision disturb the inertia that had I winning and 43 losing.
While nothing actually changes, the psychology of voting in favor of Referendum I changes a little when it feels like you are heading off a court challenge, rather than doing the right thing because you are part of a state that wants to do the right thing democratically. Similarly, the New Jersey decision takes away from the argument made by 43 opponents that it isn't necessary because the status quo is already enshrined in a state statute and federal law.
If backlash against the New Jersey decision (which on the merits I think is a good policy choice, although I lack sufficient familiarity with New Jersey state constitutional jurisprudence to evaluate it legally), energized gay rights opponents, passage of Referendum I could become less clear, passage of Amendment 43 may be more likely, and it is even possible that Marilyn Musgrave in the 4th Congresional District, whose legislative career has been defined by opposition to gay rights, could receive a boost.
I'm also worried that the New Jersey Senate race, where the Democrat is struggling in one of the bluest states in the nation, may be impacted negatively by people who are energized to vote Republican in order to support conservative federal judges. This is a year when one Senate seat really could make a difference.
Not everyone follows the news as closely as I do, and the people most likely to really care about the New Jersey case are also the people most likely to already be voters who have made up their minds about I, 43 and the 4th CD race. But, here in Colorado, I'm still wishing that the New Jersey high court had waited another couple of weeks to release its ruling.
From my perspective here in Colorado, the timing could have been better and I'm nervous. Colorado has two ballot measures relevant to the New Jersey court's ruling before voters who are voting absentee and early voting as I write, in an election that concludes on November 7.
Referendum I would enact a state domestic partnership statute, similar to the one mandated by courts in Vermont and New Jersey. Amendment 43 would put a one man, one woman definition of marriage into the state constitution.
Initial polling showed that voters favored both measures, although Referendum I was considerably more popular than Amendment 43 which was looking like the usual pre-election slump in support for ballot measures might bring it a narrow defeat. In other words, steady as she goes looked like a good campaign strategy.
Now, the question is, will the New Jersey decision disturb the inertia that had I winning and 43 losing.
While nothing actually changes, the psychology of voting in favor of Referendum I changes a little when it feels like you are heading off a court challenge, rather than doing the right thing because you are part of a state that wants to do the right thing democratically. Similarly, the New Jersey decision takes away from the argument made by 43 opponents that it isn't necessary because the status quo is already enshrined in a state statute and federal law.
If backlash against the New Jersey decision (which on the merits I think is a good policy choice, although I lack sufficient familiarity with New Jersey state constitutional jurisprudence to evaluate it legally), energized gay rights opponents, passage of Referendum I could become less clear, passage of Amendment 43 may be more likely, and it is even possible that Marilyn Musgrave in the 4th Congresional District, whose legislative career has been defined by opposition to gay rights, could receive a boost.
I'm also worried that the New Jersey Senate race, where the Democrat is struggling in one of the bluest states in the nation, may be impacted negatively by people who are energized to vote Republican in order to support conservative federal judges. This is a year when one Senate seat really could make a difference.
Not everyone follows the news as closely as I do, and the people most likely to really care about the New Jersey case are also the people most likely to already be voters who have made up their minds about I, 43 and the 4th CD race. But, here in Colorado, I'm still wishing that the New Jersey high court had waited another couple of weeks to release its ruling.
25 October 2006
The GOP Worry List
MyDD posted a week old Republican list of races they need to defend, yesterday.
Of particular interest to me is the geographic breakdown.
The only lost cause in the South, out of eight races, is DeLay's seat, where he has been indicted but not allowed to place a successor on the ballot.
Lost Causes:
Senate: MD, MI, MT, WA
House: AZ-8, PA-10 (Sherwood), OH-18 (Ney), TX-22 (DeLay)
Of the races leaning Democratic, out of twelve races, only two are in the South. One, the Foley race in Florida, is a classic "live boy" case that broke as an October surprise forcing Foley to resign.
Leans Dem
Senate: OH, PA
House: CO-7, FL-16 (Foley), NC-11, IN-2, IN-8, IN-9, NY-24, NY-26, OH-15, PA-7
Five out of nineteen toss up races are in the South or border states.
Toss Up
Senate: MO, TN, RI, NJ
House: CT-2, CT-4, FL-13, IA-1, IL-6, KY-4, MN-6, NM-1, OH-1, OH-2, PA-6, PA-8, VA-2, WA-8, WI-8
Five out of seventeen races leaning Republican are in the South or border states.
Leans GOP
Senate: VA
House: CA-4, CA-11, CO-4, CO-5, CT-5, FL-22, KY-02, KY-03, NE-1, NH-2, NV-2, NY-20, NY-25, NY-29, TX-23, WY-AL
Thus, about 10% of races leaning Democratic are in outside the former Confederacy or the border states of Kentucky and Missouri. This would be about 6% absent a spat of Republican scandals. In contrast, more than 20% of those that are toss ups or lean Republican are in those states.
There are also definitely hot spots in terms of the states making the list at all:
New York 5
Pennsylvania 5
Ohio 5
Colorado 3
Connecticut 3
Indiana 3
Florida 3
California 2
Kentucky 2
Texas 2
Considering its size, Colorado is right in the thick of it, thanks to Perlmutter, Fawcett and Paccione.
Of particular interest to me is the geographic breakdown.
The only lost cause in the South, out of eight races, is DeLay's seat, where he has been indicted but not allowed to place a successor on the ballot.
Lost Causes:
Senate: MD, MI, MT, WA
House: AZ-8, PA-10 (Sherwood), OH-18 (Ney), TX-22 (DeLay)
Of the races leaning Democratic, out of twelve races, only two are in the South. One, the Foley race in Florida, is a classic "live boy" case that broke as an October surprise forcing Foley to resign.
Leans Dem
Senate: OH, PA
House: CO-7, FL-16 (Foley), NC-11, IN-2, IN-8, IN-9, NY-24, NY-26, OH-15, PA-7
Five out of nineteen toss up races are in the South or border states.
Toss Up
Senate: MO, TN, RI, NJ
House: CT-2, CT-4, FL-13, IA-1, IL-6, KY-4, MN-6, NM-1, OH-1, OH-2, PA-6, PA-8, VA-2, WA-8, WI-8
Five out of seventeen races leaning Republican are in the South or border states.
Leans GOP
Senate: VA
House: CA-4, CA-11, CO-4, CO-5, CT-5, FL-22, KY-02, KY-03, NE-1, NH-2, NV-2, NY-20, NY-25, NY-29, TX-23, WY-AL
Thus, about 10% of races leaning Democratic are in outside the former Confederacy or the border states of Kentucky and Missouri. This would be about 6% absent a spat of Republican scandals. In contrast, more than 20% of those that are toss ups or lean Republican are in those states.
There are also definitely hot spots in terms of the states making the list at all:
New York 5
Pennsylvania 5
Ohio 5
Colorado 3
Connecticut 3
Indiana 3
Florida 3
California 2
Kentucky 2
Texas 2
Considering its size, Colorado is right in the thick of it, thanks to Perlmutter, Fawcett and Paccione.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)