Archive for the ‘Local Politics Colorado’ Category

BIGHORN RETURNED TO NORTHERN SANGRE DE CRISTO RANGE

November 7, 2010

CRESTONE, Colo. – Thirteen Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep have a new home in the northern portion of the Sangre de Cristo mountain range following a successful transplant operation by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

The Northern Sangres have been devoid of bighorn sheep since the 1980’s, but with the population in the Southern Sangres thriving, the DOW decided to take advantage of an opportunity to reestablish Colorado’s state animal to another part of its historic range.

“Bighorn belong in the Northern Sangres,” said Dan Prenzlow, DOW Southeast Regional Manager. “Restoring native species is the kind of thing the Division of Wildlife loves to do. We’re delighted to be able to make this happen.”

The project, led by Brian Dreher, the senior terrestrial biologist for the Southeast Region, presented a novel challenge.

“This is the first time we’ve moved sheep from one high alpine location to another,” Dreher said.  “We hope these first 13 animals are the beginning of new self-sustaining alpine herd sheep in good habitat were bighorn were once common.”

During a two-day operation in mid-October, Colorado-based Quicksilver Air, Inc. captured three rams, nine ewes and a lamb at elevations between 12,000 and 13,000 feet above sea level in the mountains southeast of Crestone.  The bighorns were airlifted to a central processing station on the valley floor where DOW veterinarians took DNA and blood samples, gave each animal a thorough medical exam and recorded data.  The sheep were also fitted with radio telemetry tracking collars and ear tags.

Once the animals were processed, DOW crews used trailers to truck the sheep to the upper end of the San Luis Valley.  From that point, the helicopter airlifted the sheep again to their new alpine home north of Hunts Lake.

Prior to undertaking the project, Dreher did extensive research on habitat suitability and looked for historical accounts of bighorn sheep on the alpine areas of the Northern Sangre de Cristo range. His research indicated that bighorns were once common, but that over time sheep numbers dwindled. The last sighting of bighorns in the Northern Sangres was in 1980.

“In the early 1900’s, local ranchers reported sheep in the Northern Sangres around Stout and Bushnell lakes,” he said. “Locals even called one of the peaks Sheep Mountain. When we looked, we found no sheep but plenty of good habitat, including winter range, lambing areas and escape terrain.”

Dreher added that the bighorns will be monitored monthly from fixed-wing aircraft for several years to evaluate survival, reproduction, and distribution.

More information about bighorn sheep and the DOW’s bighorn conservation program can be found at:  http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/Mammals/BighornSheep.htm

NOTE TO NEWS EDITORS:  Still photos are available for download:

Photo # 1:  Helicopter delivers bighorn sheep.
http://dnr.state.co.us/ImageDBImages/26036.JPG

Photo # 2:  DOW biologists carry sheep from helicopter.
http://dnr.state.co.us/ImageDBImages/26038.JPG

Photo # 3: Dr. Mike Miller collects DNA blood samples from bighorn sheep.
http://dnr.state.co.us/ImageDBImages/26041.JPG

Photo #4: DOW biologists fit bighorn sheep with a radio tracking collar.
http://dnr.state.co.us/ImageDBImages/26040.JPG

Photo #5: Bighorn sheep with radio tracking collar.
http://dnr.state.co.us/ImageDBImages/26037.JPG

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.

Stuck on stupid: A tale of two states…

November 3, 2010

This will be a short post, but to the point. And surly there will be follow up postings.

Colorado and California. That says it all…

Largest campaign finance violations in Colorado history!

November 2, 2010

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.

On Thursday, Clear the Bench Colorado – Political Action Committee filed, pro se, a campaign finance and electioneering complaint against the “Know Your Judge” consortium: the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (“IAALS”), Colorado Bar Association (“COBAR”), Colorado Judicial Institute (“CJI”) and the Colorado League of Women Voters (“LWV”).

In this complaint, Clear the Bench Colorado alleges that both collectively as the “Know Your Judge” group and as individual organizations, these groups have engaged in electioneering communications through print, radio and television advertisements as well as on their website – in violation of campaign finance laws, which would have subjected them to the same guidelines to file as a political committee (and the same contribution and expenditure limits) with the Secretary of State’s office as were followed by Clear The Bench Colorado.

Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent by these organizations with no accountability or transparency, in sharp contrast to Clear the Bench Colorado – which has followed the ever-changing law to the letter – while conducting similar political advocacy activities.

In a clear example of “what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander,” Clear the Bench Colorado simply wants these organizations held to the same legal standard as is everyone else in the state.

Unlike the frivolous, groundless, and vexatious complaint filed by “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) against Clear the Bench Colorado back in May, this lawsuit has a solid legal basis (in part, due to the ruling against CTBC, ironically enough).  View our website, www.clearthebenchcolorado.org, to read the complaint in its entirety and for updates.

If Clear the Bench receives a favorable judgment, these organizations will be subject to fees ($50 per day that they didn’t file) as well as fines of 2-5 times the contribution totals above and beyond the $525 contribution limit of a political committee (which, since these groups spent at least $85,000, will add up to a hefty sum).

This would be the largest campaign finance violation penalty in the history of Colorado – dwarfing the previous record by some 30 times…

These groups, with armies of accountants and lawyers at their beck and call, should (and do) know better.  Apparently, they thought that they could get away with violating the law, since CTBC’s resources (and ability to challenge) have been strained almost to the breaking point.  However, they messed with the wrong guy…

Clear The Bench Colorado may be the underdog in this fight – but it’s not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, but the size of the fight in the dog.  CTBC doesn’t have armies of attorneys and accountants on call – but CTBC is… an Army of One.

‘Army of One’ takes on Colorado Legal establishment

October 29, 2010

‘Army of One’ takes on Colorado Legal establishment

Campaign finance and electioneering complaint filed against “Know Your Judge” consortium

 

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.

This afternoon, Clear the Bench Colorado – Political Action Committee filed, pro se, a campaign finance and electioneering complaint against the “Know Your Judge” consortium: the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (“IAALS”), Colorado Bar Association (“COBAR”), Colorado Judicial Institute (“CJI”) and the Colorado League of Women Voters (“LWV”).

 

In this complaint, Clear the Bench Colorado alleges that both collectively as the “Know Your Judge” campaign and as individual organizations, these groups have engaged in electioneering communications through print, radio and television advertisements as well as on their website – in violation of campaign finance laws, which would have subjected them to the same guidelines to file as a political committee (and the same contribution and expenditure limits) with the Secretary of State’s office as were followed by Clear The Bench Colorado.

 

Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent by these organizations with no accountability or transparency, in sharp contrast to Clear the Bench Colorado – which has followed the ever-changing law to the letter – while conducting similar political advocacy activities.

 

In a clear example of “what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander,” Clear the Bench Colorado simply wants these organizations held to the same legal standard as is everyone else in the state.

 

Unlike the frivolous, groundless, and vexatious complaint filed by “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) against Clear the Bench Colorado back in May, this lawsuit has a solid legal basis (in part, due to the ruling against CTBC, ironically enough).  View our website, www.clearthebenchcolorado.org, to read the complaint in its entirety and for updates.

 

If Clear the Bench receives a favorable judgment, these organizations will be subject to fees ($50 per day that they didn’t file) as well as fines of 2-5 times the contribution totals above and beyond the $525 contribution limit of a political committee (which, since these groups spent at least $85,000, will add up to a hefty sum).

 

These groups, with armies of accountants and lawyers at their beck and call, should (and do) know better.  Apparently, they thought that they could get away with violating the law, since CTBC’s resources (and ability to challenge) have been strained almost to the breaking point.  However, they messed with the wrong guy…

 

Clear The Bench Colorado may be the underdog in this fight – but it’s not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, but the size of the fight in the dog.  CTBC doesn’t have armies of attorneys and accountants on call – but CTBC is… an Army of One.

 

Colorado Election : Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives

October 16, 2010

As directed by the Libertarian Party of Colorado Constitution, the Board of Directors has reviewed the 2010 amendments and propositions on the ballot for voter consideration.  There are seven proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution and two propositions to change the Revised Statutes.

For the 2010 election, the Colorado “Blue Book” contains succinct summaries of each of these.  There are also pro and con websites and other information being provided in numerous information media outlets.
The Libertarian Party of Colorado consists of free thinkers and responsible voters who seek as much information as possible about the pros and cons of every voting decision they will make.  We believe every libertarian and other voters will make up their own minds based on their careful review of the issues.
The following are the Libertarian Party of Colorado positions concerning each of the 2010 Colorado initiatives.
Amendment P –Regulation of Games of Chance. The LPCO takes no position either way on this amendment.
Moves bingo and raffle licensing from Sec State to Dept of Revenue (or other designated by the state legislature).  In addition to time, energy, and money already expended on this change to existing law, there will be a onetime $116,000 expenditure from bingo and raffle license fees.
The amendment makes no significant changes to the Colorado Constitution or the long term financial situation of the State Government-
Amendment Q –Temp Location of State Seat of Government.  The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Currently there is no provision in the Colorado Constitution for convening of the State Government if a major disaster emergency were to make Denver unusable.  This amendment provides direction for the Governor and the Legislature to designate a temporary location for the seat of government.
Amendment R –Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property.  The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Eliminates property taxes for individuals and businesses that use government-owned property for a private benefit worth $6,000 or less in market value.
The fiscal effects of this amendment are relatively minor, but should increase the efficiency of local governments by reducing the costs of assessing and collecting minor amounts of property taxes from numerous small assessments.
Ammendment 60 –Concerning Property Taxes. The LPCO recommends a YES vote on this amendment.
Strengthens TABOR by adding a new section (10) to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.
-Requires audit and enforcement of this section.
-All owners of real property would be entitled to vote on all proposed property taxes affecting their property.
-Voters may petition to lower property taxes
-Property tax issues shall have November election notices separate from debt issues
-Property Tax bills list only property taxes and late charges
-Enterprise and authorities shall pay property taxes.  Lower mil-levy rates to offset income to taxing dist
-10 year expiration on property tax rate increases
-Extending expiring property taxes, is a tax increase
-Prior actions to keep excess property tax revenue are expired; future actions are tax increases expiring in 4 years.  Local governments and enterprises will have to make serious adjustments to their budgets and seek direct voter approval of property taxes on at least a four-year cycle.
-by 2020, non-college school districts phase out ½ of their 2011 property tax rate for operating expenses.  State aid replaces the revenue.  Shifts school operating costs to State general fund from local resources.
Amendment 61 –Limit State and Local Government Borrowing. The LPCO recommends YES on this amendment.
-Repeals existing Article XI Section 3 and re-enacts the original 1876 version of this section to read, “The state shall not contract any debt in any form.”
-Repeals Article XI Sections 4, 5, 6(2), and 6(3) as obsolete and superceded.
-Repeals and re-enacts Article XI Section 6(1) to require voter approval for local governments to contract debt.  Also requires ballot title to be specific.
-Adds further specific requirements concerning debt to Article X section 20(4)
–November Ballot approval
–10 year limit on new local debt
–borrowing can’t exceed 10% of assessed valuation
–Tax Rates must be reduced when borrowing is repaid
Amendment 62 Application of Term Person. The LPCO recommends NO on this amendment.
Would define person as at the beginning of biological development and entitled to full protection of Colorado law.
This is an effort to insert the State into the intensely personal decisions concerning the beginning of human life.  It would only further complicate already difficult decisions.
Amendment 63 -Health Care Choice. The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Adds Article II section 32 to make health care choice a constitutional right.  Prohibits the state from requiring a person to participate in health plans.  Restricts the state from limiting a person’s ability to make or receive direct payments for health services.  Exempts emergency treatment and Workers’ Compensation from this new right.
This is in response to the recently enacted Federal health care decrees.  It is unfortunately now necessary for Colorado to take a stand to protect individual and state rights associated with US Constitution Article I and Amendments 9 and 10.
Proposition 101 -Income, Vehicle, and Telecommunication Taxes and Fees.  The LPCO recommends YES on this Proposition.
-Reduces state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.5% in 2011 and then over time to 3.5%.
-reduces and eliminates vehicle taxes and fees over next 4 years.
-eliminates all state and local taxes on telecommunications service, except 911 fees
-requires voter approval to for future vehicle and telecomm fees.
Proposition 102 –Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs.  The LPCO recommends NO on this proposition.
Adds requirements to Colorado Statutes to prohibit release of a defendant on an unsecured bond to pretrial services program unless it is a first offense and is nonviolent misdemeanor.
If passed this measure will reduce the ability of Judges to release those accused of crimes while awaiting trial.  Those unable to afford additional bonding expenses would remain in custody.  Additional total costs to the State are estimated at $2.8 million.
Retention of Colorado Supreme Court Judges.
For the 2010 November election, voters are asked to consider retention/non-retention of a number of Judges.  The LPCO encourages all voters to carefully consider each judge.
Several of the Citizen initiated amendments on the 2010 November Ballot are in response to Supreme Court decisions contrary to the intent of existing constitutional provisions.  The activist nature of the recent Colorado Supreme Court and it’s decisions appears to be more focused on predetermined outcomes rather than the Rule of Law.
-The LPCO recommends NO on each of the 3 Supreme Court Judges to be considered.
SOURCE:
Date: 12 Oct 10
From: LPCO Board of Directors
To:   Colorado Libertarians and interested Voters
Subj:  Libertarian Party of Colorado Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives.

Perhaps the LPCO has regained some semblance of sanity? Time will tell.


Denver Post endorsesClear The Bench Colorado!* sort of…

October 16, 2010

 

Denver Post endorsesClear The Bench Colorado!*

(*Well, sort of…  one editor (of 5 total), endorsing 2 out of 3 recommendations plus all of the analysis, pretty much adds up to one endorsement.  Fun with fractions!)

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.

 

On Wednesday October 13th, the Denver Post, in what is the closest thing to an official position on the three Colorado Supreme Court incumbents (justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice) seeking an additional 10-year term on this year’s ballot the newspaper is likely to take, endorsed two of the three recommendations advanced by Clear The Bench Colorado.

The editorial (“No clean sweep of justices“) endorsed the “compelling indictment of Michael Bender and Alex Martinez” but differed with Clear The Bench Colorado’s recommendation on Justice Rice.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether Justice Rice deserves another 10 years on the bench (CTBC’s analysis of her opinions in key constitutional cases shows a split result, leaning narrowly towards non-retention; Attorney General John Suthers had also earlier endorsed a “retain” vote on Justice Rice while advocating a “do not retain” vote on Justice Michael Bender and Justice Alex Martinez, as well).

Most importantly, the Denver Post editorial strongly complimented the Clear The Bench Colorado Evaluations of Judicial Performance analysis as a superior resource to the sham “Blue Book” reviews:

“In every election, voters go to the polls with virtually no knowledge of the judges up for retention – thanks to the nearly useless evaluations issued by the state’s judicial performance commission. So voters do owe Clear the Bench Colorado their thanks for actually offering substantive analysis.”

 

The ultimate responsibility – and authority – rests with the voters.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges all Colorado citizens to become informed about how the Colorado Supreme Court has aided and abetted assaults on their rights (and wallets!) with a consistent pattern of not following the Constitution where it doesn’t agree with their own personal agenda – and drawing the necessary and logical conclusions.

As a Citizen, you DO have the right to vote “NO” on these incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices as they seek an additional 10-year term this November.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges Colorado voters to exercise their rights on the ballot this November.

NRA Endorsements: Single issue organization fallacy

October 12, 2010

The National Rifle Association recently released it’s political endorsements for the upcoming elections. There is an excellent discussion about this HERE. Be sure to read through the comments as they are a bot more than enlightening. I had planned on an in depth posting on the subject, however Dave Kopel really beat me to it! 🙂

Now, speaking as a Life Member I have one thing to say about the NRA being a “single issue” organization. BOVINE FECES Mister Cox and Mister LaPierre. I seem to remember something about “It’s not about hunting ducks.” Yet, the NRA has an entire division devoted to hunting. Let’s not forget about the various marksmanship  and safety programs that are offered. Single issue? Hardly! Stop the hypocrisy, please!

Then we have the NRA rolling over time and time again; The NRA supported ex post facto law. The NRA has supported so-called “reasonable” restrictions on your Second Amendment rights on so many occasions that I won’t bother with citation.

Now, I happen to like many of the programs noted above, and believe that they are quite valuable resources. Just stop playing the game that, for all appearances, looks to simply be more pandering to high dollar donors. While at the same time going into damage control mode when the membership decides to take you to the wood shed over yet another action that is so clearly against their (the membership’s) wishes. And or dealing in appeasement politics.

Who will truly protect your rights on a national level? Gun Owners of America does. As does the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Association for Gun Rights. There are also regional and state organizations that refuse to kow tow to along the lines of the NRA. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and Wyoming Gun Owners come to mind, and there are others out there that I am not familiar with.

Sure, vote freedom first! Just make sure that is actually what you are doing, and support those organizations that truly defend your rights!

Clear the Bench Colorado Press Release

October 7, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado invites comparison: our Evaluations vs. the ‘Commission on Judicial Performance’ “reviews”

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303-995-5533

Clear The Bench Colorado invites comparison: our Evaluations vs. the ‘Commission on Judicial Performance’ “reviews”

Colorado voters are being subjected to a barrage of big-money, special-interest advertising on judicial retention elections this year – as decried in editorials from the New York Times and other media sources across the country, as well as in other news coverage statewide.Special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars attempting to influence Coloradans to vote their way on the question of whether to retain incumbent judges (including three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices facing “stiff opposition” as they seek an additional 10-year term in office).

There’s just one problem with this narrative – and why you haven’t heard about it in the mass media.

All of this special-interest money is being spent in Colorado to prop up the judicial incumbents

Legal establishment special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars to convince Colorado voters that “all is well” with state courts – promoting the farcical rubber-stamp “reviews” conducted and published by the commissions on judicial “performance.”

Why are the “reviews” not a reliable source of information on judicial performance?

1. The “reviews” do not distinguish between good and bad judicial performance – and almost ALWAYS recommend a “retain” vote for the judges ‘reviewed.’ Colorado Commission on Judicial Performance Evaluations (CCJPE) Executive Director Jane Howell confirms that, over the decades-long history of the review process, Colorado Supreme Court justices “reviewed” by the commissions have received a “retain” vote 100% of the time.

(Similarly, Court of Appeals judges have also received a 100% “retain” recommendation, while all judges at other levels have received “retain” recommendations 99% of the time).

Even Fidel Castro and the late Saddam Hussein didn’t receive that level of “retain” votes!

(Although Colorado has plenty of good judges, at many levels – they’re not all that good.)

2. The “reviews” – published as a 5-paragraph narrative, only one paragraph of which even pretends to address actual judicial “performance” – provide very little substantive information on which to base an informed decision. The review criteria are shallow (“timeliness”, ‘orderliness’ and “demeanor”) rather than substantive and performance-based. The level of “evaluation” is more like a kindergarten report card (“Benny is punctual, keeps his area neat & tidy, and plays well with others” ) rather than a serious look at judicial performance.

A Denver Post guest commentary written by a former State Judicial Performance Commissioner provided an insightful critique of the current process several months ago.

3. The “reviews” provide NO information on how the justices actually voted in important constitutional cases – rulings which have had a tremendous (and highly negative) impact on Colorado citizens.

Where can voters get substantive analysis of the performance of Colorado Supreme Court justices?

Clear The Bench Colorado has conducted an exhaustive analysis of Colorado Supreme Court decisions addressing important constitutional issues of interest to the greatest number of Colorado voters.

We invite voters to compare and contrast our  Evaluations of judicial performance with the “reviews” perpetrated by the ‘performance’ commissions (and foisted upon voters, at great taxpayer expense and without opposing views, as is otherwise required by law for other ballot questions) in the “Blue Book.”

We are confident that discerning voters will find our  Evaluations of much greater value.

Voters deserve to be provided with more extensive, informative, and useful information on which to base their voting decisions.  “The high marks received by each justice through the system of evaluation in place” are NOT an endorsement of the justices, but rather  an indictment of the weakness and inadequacy of the judicial performance review process.  Despite the genuinely hard work and good intentions of the majority of the judicial performance review commissioners, the process (and end-products) are perhaps endemically flawed.

There has been a failure of real performance evaluation and a lack of analytical content in the write-ups for the voters.  If narratives provide meaningful information about how a justice has decided cases, there will be accountability and the system will work as it is designed to do.  Too often in the past, narratives have amounted to complimentary resumes instead of job performance evaluations.  Some commentators and observers have denigrated the narratives as a “rubber stamp” exercise for retaining judges.

The ultimate responsibility – and authority – rests with the voters.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges all Colorado citizens to become informed about how the Colorado Supreme Court has aided and abetted assaults on their rights (and wallets!) with a consistent pattern of not following the Constitution where it doesn’t agree with their own personal agenda – and drawing the necessary and logical conclusions.

 

The opposition to our Health Care Choice Amendment – Amendment 63?

October 2, 2010

What follows was edited do to late posting, and a misspell! Sorry Jon!~ 🙂

Strange Anti-Health Care Choice Bedfellows: Who’s been funding the opposition to our Health Care Choice Amendment – Amendment 63? 90% of their funding comes from Washington, DC and most of that from the unions. The SEIU, the government workers union, the NEA, and the AFL-CIO are the biggest contributors by far. Good to know that the national teachers union realizes fighting Health Care Choice in Colorado is good for, um, education? I guess if educational choice is bad for kids, health care choice would be too.

Watch my latest health care debate on TV tonight! I will be on Colorado Public Television channel 12 right after my own show Devils Advocate ends to debate our right to health care choice initiative – Amendment 63. The debate is airing on “Colorado Decides 2010” at 9pm. I will be debating Edie Sonn, Director of the Colorado Medical Society who happens to oppose the repeal of Obama Care. (Spoiler alert: the bald guy wins).

Last week’s health care choice debate here: Rocky Mountain PBS (channel 6) aired a debate I had with T.R. Reid about Amendment 63 – Colorado’s Right to Health Care Choice last week. Did I mention my opponent T.R. is a Princeton-educated sycophant of collective health care? He was the “reporter” who did that completely unbiased PBS Frontline report on how every other country is the world has a better health care system than the US. Yeah… so check out the debate online here.

Great New Education Movie! Great New Education Movie! The school system is failing our kids on a massive scale, that much is evident. But are enough people motivated to take the right kind of action and fix it? The new movie “Waiting for Superman” should open many eyes with the story of five inner-city kids whose lives hang in the balance of a charter school lottery. Perhaps that’s why the unions and status quo interest groups have attacked the movie. Waiting for Superman opened nationally this past Friday, but mark your calendars for the October 15 Colorado premiere. Until then, check out little Eddie’s post for more information and a look at the theatrical trailer.

How to Save a Billion Dollars: Colorado taxpayers are on the hook for more than $1 billion in unfunded liabilities incurred in the defined benefit retiree health plan administered by the Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA). An additional $79 million in unfunded liabilities was incurred in 2008. These are just some of the findings by Independence Institute Senior Fellow Barry Poulson in his potent new issue paper, “How to Save a Billion Dollars in Other Post Employment Benenfit Costs.” In it, Barry lays out the looming fiscal crisis driven by, among other things, flawed actuarial assumptions by PERA, and outrageously optimistic assumptions (which have failed to be realized) about the rate of return on assets held in the Health Care Trust Fund. If saving a billion dollars seems like pie in the sky to you now, give Barry’s paper a shot and find out how it can be done.

PJ O’Rourke Book Signing Event! Because PJ was so much fun last year for our annual Founders Night, we decided to bring him back for an event at Jackson’s Bar and Grill in LoDo on Monday, October 4th from 6 to 8pm. He will be signing copies of his book “Don’t Vote, It Just Encourages the Bastards.” If you’d like to join us, RSVP to Mary MacFarlane by calling us at 303.279.6536 or emailing Mary at mary@i2i.org.

The Right to Earn a Living Event: The Independence Institute, Liberty on the Rocks, and the CATO Institute invite you to join us for an evening with Timothy Sandefur, Adjunct Scholar at the CATO Institute and Principal Attorney – Pacific Research Institute for a book signing of “The Right to Earn a Living.” We’ll be having the event at our Independence Institute offices in Golden on Thursday, October 7th at 5:30pm. If you’d like to join us, RSVP to Mary MacFarlane by calling us at 303.279.6536 or emailing Mary at mary@i2i.org.

Must see TV: What’s it like for Republicans running for Congress against incumbent Democrats in the age of Obama and a Democratic majority? To find out, tune in to Devil’s Advocate this Friday as I am joined by Colorado Republican candidates for Congress Ryan Frazier, Cory Gardner, Mike Fallon and Stephen Bailey. That’s TONIGHT, October 1st at 8:30 PM on Colorado Public Television 12. Re-broadcast the following Monday at 1:30 PM. And remember to stay tuned right after Devil’s Advocate for my debate over the Health Care Choice Amendment.

Must hear podcast: Education policy analyst Ben DeGrow deconstructs the $10 billion Edujobs bailout passed by Congress in August, noting that the policy not only seriously overestimated the need to curb teacher layoffs and ignored other available solutions but also discriminated against charter schools. It remains unclear exactly when and how Colorado school districts will use the funds to hire and rehire employees. Listen to this podcast on iVoices.org.

Perspective: In this week’s op-ed, Linda Gorman stresses the importance of Amendment 63 – the Right to Health Care Choice – ability to protect Colorado citizens from the mandates found in Obama Care. Colorado citizens already face dozens of mandates imposed by our state, the last thing we need is the grandaddy of all mandates to buy a health insurance, whether we like it or not, coming down from the federal government. Read here as Linda Gorman explains how Amendment 63 will stop DC.

Until next week…

Straight on

Jon Caldara

Colorado tosses out it’s own Constitution!

September 30, 2010

Judge’s ruling against judicial reform group Clear The Bench Colorado undermines transparency, accountability in judicial retention vote

Judge’s ruling favors entrenched incumbents and big-money special interests

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.

Judge’s ruling against judicial reform group Clear The Bench Colorado undermines transparency, accountability in judicial retention vote

Judge’s ruling favors entrenched incumbents and big-money special interests

Late last Friday afternoon, Clear The Bench Colorado was stunned by the news that Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer (as an executive branch employee, answerable to the governor and not subject to a retention vote himself) set aside the documentary evidence, testimony by Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold along with the Elections Division director at the Colorado Secretary of State’s office AND the clear letter of the law to rule in favor of “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) in what the same judge had earlier characterized as a “frivolous, groundless, & vexatious” attack (er, “campaign finance complaint”).

Despite reliance on over a year’s worth of guidance issued by the office of Secretary of State (as confirmed in numerous documents and in witness testimony provided in hearings on 15 September) reached after “numerous” internal policy meetings and much research that Clear The Bench Colorado was, is, and ought to be properly characterized as an “Issue Committee” under campaign finance rules; CTBC’s scrupulous compliance with all rules, regulations, and reporting requirements for over a year; and dismissal of CEW’s earlier complaint as “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” – the judge changed course and found for CEW in their latest round of attacks, changing the rules in the final quarter of play.

Changing the rules at such a late date – mail ballots go out at the same time Clear The Bench Colorado has been directed to re-file as a political committee – and in direct contravention of the guidance upon which CTBC has relied for well over a year makes a mockery of the process of citizen civic engagement.  As noted by Clear The Bench Colorado lead attorney Scott Gessler,

“That’s just crazy, that ruling,” said Gessler. “What kind of crazy system is that, when you can’t trust what the Secretary of State tells you? [This ruling] means you have to hire a lawyer to do anything- to get involved at all in the political process.” (Colorado Independent, 9/25/2010)

From documentation provided by the office of Secretary of State:

Colorado campaign finance and Judicial retention

While judges are considered “candidates” for the purpose of campaign finance law in Art. XXVIII Sec. 2(2) of the Colorado Constitution, the question of the retention of a judge is a yes-or-no question.  Therefore, a committee organized for the purpose of advocating the retention or removal of a judge is advocating for a yes or no vote on that question, rather than advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate.  A committee organized for such a purpose is akin to a committee advocating for (or against) the recall of an elected official, which would register an issue committee under 1-45-108(6), C.R.S.  To that end, a committee established for the purpose of supporting or opposing the retention of a judge or judges is properly registered as an issue committee for campaign finance purposes.  Such an entity would not be considered a political committee, because political committees are established for the purpose of “support[ing] or oppos[ing] the nomination or election of one or more candidates” (Art. XXVII Sec. 2(12)(a)).  [emphasis added]

Adding insult to injury, the judge’s ruling is granting “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) more time to pay Clear The Bench Colorado what they’ve owed since July than time for Clear The Bench Colorado to re-file under “political committee” status or to appeal the ruling.

Naturally, Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) is trumpeting the ruling as a great victory, declaring in a press release Friday:

“The law does not permit a wealthy few to unduly influence the judicial retention process through large contributions against judges and justices whose rulings they don’t like.  Ethics Watch prevailed today in setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”

Ironically, the ruling “achieves” the exact opposite: big-money special interests will now be more prone to attempt to influence judicial retention elections behind the scenes, using vehicles other than the open and accountable “Issue Committee” organization types such as Clear The Bench Colorado.

In fact, big-money legal establishment special-interest groups are already active this year in promoting a “retain” vote for judicial incumbents (including, prominently, the three Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on the ballot this year).  They’re just significantly less honest about their intentions…

In a campaign that has been conspicuous for its LACK of big-money interests and “large contributions” (Toro is whining about two – TWO! – contributions exceeding $500), acting with complete transparency and absolute accountability to educate voters as to their right to hold judicial incumbents accountable for their performance in office, and to shed light on the records of judicial incumbents at the highest levels in order to provide substantive information on which voters can base an informed decision, CEW’s attacks (and the judge’s ruling in this case) do the Colorado electorate a great disservice.

CEW’s Toro is right about one thing: “Judges are… subject to corruption” via the influence of big-money special interests keeping them in office.

The expenditure of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) by legal establishment special-interest groups comprised of the very lawyers appearing before the judges they are supporting in office is much more likely to exert “undue influence” and raise the potential for “quid pro quo” corruption.

The Colorado Bar Association (COBAR) has already spent over $50,000 this last month (by their own admission) joining three other legal establishment special-interest groups (likely spending a similar amount, although the exact figures have not been made publicly available) in mounting an “education” campaign (electioneering without using the “magic words” of “vote yes” or “vote NO“) to prop up incumbent judges and justices.   In one month alone, they’ve spent more than CTBC has in a year.  Combined, these special interests are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in television, radio, and print ads providing “nonpartisan information about the performance of judges seeking retention” that, curiously, ALL supports a “retain” vote.

Another effort, sponsored by prominent Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin and other partisan attorneys (the “Colorado Judiciary Project”) is also spending large amounts (again, because this group formed as a “social welfare organization” their expenditures are NOT publicly available) supporting the judicial incumbents before whom they argue cases.  Conflict of interest?  Nah!

Ironically, these legal special-interest efforts come on top of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars used to produce and distribute the one-sided and shallow “evaluations” perpetrated by the (taxpayer-funded) commissions on judicial performance evaluation – which, again, advocate 100% of the time to “retain” Colorado Supreme Court justices in office.

NONE of these expenditures – hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the retention of judicial incumbents in office – are transparent and accountable to the public.

Did Friday’s ruling really succeed in “setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”?

Hardly.   It just provided cover for the big money that’s already comfortably ensconced in the process – erecting additional roadblocks to shedding light on the fact, and restoring accountability to the judiciary.

Clear The Bench Colorado has been consistently open, honest, and above-board in educating the public, and has scrupulously followed the rules under Colorado campaign finance laws for well over a year.  Forcing CTBC to re-file under a different set of rules – changed in the final quarter – makes a mockery of justice.

Yet another reason that now more than ever – it’s time to Clear The Bench, Colorado!

http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/