NSRF July 2010 Newsletter

8/9/2019 NSRF July 2010 Newsletter

1/18

1

North Suburban Republican ForumJuly, 2010

www.NorthSuburbanRepublicanForum.org

Key Dates for Election Year 2010

July 12: The last day voters can register and still vote in the primary election. Also the last day voters canchange their party affiliation to vote in the primary. Unaffiliated voters can affiliate with a party up to theprimary election day in order to vote in the primary.August 10: Republican primary election occurs.

October 4:Last day to register to vote in the November general election.October 18: Early voting begins

October 26: Last day to apply for a mail-in ballotNovember 2: General election. 7:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. Get Out The Vote, Colorado Republicans!!!!

To register to vote or confirm you are a registered Colorado voter, go to:https://www.sos.state.co.us/Voter/secuRegVoterIntro.do;jsessionid=0000jQnC8tGgXWsmlLhcWC5dc-x:11p1kuu1d

Our next meeting is from 9:15-10:15 am, Saturday morning, July 10th

featuring a discussion

on what initiatives will be on the 2010 Colorado ballot. Remember to bring somebody new to

the NSRF as we discuss Colorado politics.


2/18

2

NSRF upcoming calendar in 2010:

August 14 Primary Election results discussion and Adams County office candidates: Treasurer,

Commissioner, Sheriff, Coroner, Clerk and Recorder

September 11th

All candidates are welcome

October 9 Countdown to Election Day, November 2nd

and how to help GOTV

November 13 Election recap

December 11 NSRF Board Election, special breakfast, and planning for politics in 2011

January 8 -- Colorados legislative upcoming 2011 session

For more information on politics or The Republican Party, go to the following web sites:

http://wwww.AmericanMajority.org www.RedState.com www.ClearTheBenchColorado.org

www.SmallBusinessRepublicans.com www.LimitPropertyTax.com www.CoTaxReform.com

www.AmericansForProsperity.org www.Spectator.org ww.NorthSuburbanRepublicanForum.org

http://coloradopoliticalnews.blogspot.com/ www.Heritage.org/ http://Townhall.com/

http://dmyr.net/ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ http://www.joncaldara.com/

http://www.denverpost.com/politics http://www.great8newspapers.com/ www.i2i.org/

http://www.freecolorado.com/ http://michellemalkin.com/ http://bendegrow.com/

http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/ http://www.rockymountainright.com/ http://FactCheck.org

http://www.coloradosenatenews.com/ www.OpinionJournal.com www.PoliticalLiveWires.com

http://thebrightonblade.com/ http://www.topix.net/city/commerce-city-co

http://coloradopols.com/ http://www.jeffcrank.com/ www.850koa.com/pages/MikeRosen.html

www.Examiner.com/Denver www.CompleteColorado.com http://TheMoveRight.com

www.FaceTheState.com/ www.TonysRants.com/ www.ALineOfSight.com/

www.AdamsCountyGOP.com/ www.ColoGOP.org/ www.RNC.org/

Sign up for the monthly Adams County Republicans newsletterat http://www.AdamsCountyGOP.com/ orhttp://www.AdCoRepublicans.com

Go to the Join Our Email List box on the left side and input your email address.


3/18

3

Amendment 60: Restores TABOR limits that have been violated.

Amendment 61: Limits government borrowing.

Amendment 62: Definition of Person.

Proposition 101: Lowers state income tax rates and reduces automobile registration fees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colorado_ballot_measures#November_2.2C_2010

Colorado 2010 ballot measuresSix measures have been certified for the 2010 ballot in Colorado. Three of the certified measures are initiated

constitutional amendments, while one is a initiated state statutes.

The signature filing deadline for the 2010 ballot in Colorado is not clear-cut. A statute passed in 2009 says the deadline

is July 12, but some sources say that this statute conflicts with the Colorado Constitution and that the deadline is actually

thereforeAugust 2. At least one initiative sponsor has received a letter from the Colorado Secretary of State putting the

deadline on August 2.[1]

Currently approximately 98 ballot initiatives have been proposed for the 2010 ballot in Colorado. Eleven of the proposed

initiatives have already been withdrawn or have expired.

On the ballot

Type Title Subject Description

CISS Proposition 101 (4) Taxes Makes amendments to current vehicle, income and telecommunicationtaxes and fees

CICA Amendment 60 (3) Taxes Proposes reducing property taxes

CICA Amendment 61 (3) Statebudgets

Forbids debt by loan in any form

CICA Amendment 62 Abortion Applies the term 'person' to every human being from the beginning ofbiological development

LRCA State Seat Temporary LocationAdmin ofgov't

Process for moving the state seat to a temporary location during adeclared disaster emergency

LRCAExempt Possessory Interests inReal Property

TaxesEliminate property taxes for individuals or businesses that usegovernment-owned property for a private benefit


4/18

4

**CISS=An initiated state statute, also known as an initiative statute, is a new law that a state adopts via the ballot

initiative process. The most common form of initiated state statute is when groups collect signatures and once those

signatures are collected, election officials place the measure on the ballot for a vote. A less common form is the indirect

initiated state statute. 22 states allow citizens to proposed new state statutes via initiative

**CICA=An initiated constitutional amendment is an amendment to a state's constitution that comes about through

the initiative process.

Of the twenty-four American states that have some degree ofdirect democracy, eighteen (18) of them have a provision fo

initiated constitutional amendments. In several of these states, including Illinois, Massachusetts and Mississippi, the

requirements for placing a proposed amendment before the people through an initiative process are so prohibitively

difficult that the process has rarely if ever been used.

Since 2006, additional notable hurdles to a successful completion of the process have been enacted in Florida, Montana,

Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma and Oregon.

States where the process has historically proven to be manageable, and where the rules do not change frequently,

include Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio and South Dakota

**LRCA=A legislatively-referred constitutional amendmentis a proposed constitutional amendment that appears on

a state's ballot as a ballot measure because the state legislaturein that state voted to put it before the voters.

A legislatively-referred constitutional amendment is a limited form ofdirect democracy with comparison to the initiated

constitutional amendment. With the initiated constitutional amendment, voters can initiate the amendment and approve it,

whereas with the legislatively-referred amendment, they can only approve or reject amendments initiated by theirstate's

legislature.

49 states have a law in place

that allows citizens to vote on

proposed constitutional

amendments offered by

the state legislature. The

exception is Delaware,

where the legislature alone

acts on constitutional

amendments.

Two-thirds of each chamber

of the Colorado General

Assembly must vote

affirmatively for a proposed

amendment in order for it to

go on the statewide ballot for

potential voter ratification.


5/18

5

Health care reform riding away?

Group collecting signatures to havelawmakers repeal federal health reform

Peter Marcus, DDN Staff Writer

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Conservatives are raising the message of Paul Revere in an attempt to convince lawmakers to repeal federal health

reform legislation recently pushed through Congress by Democrats.

The Revere America campaign stopped in Denver yesterday with its spokesman, former Republican New YorkGov. George Pataki, encouraging Coloradans to sign a petition asking Congress to repeal and replace ObamaCare withresponsible reforms to the nations health care system.

Paul Revere embarked on his historic ride warning the people that their freedom was in danger, Pataki saidyesterday outside the Civic Center Station plaza, referring to the horseback ride Revere made 235 years ago alertingpatriots to the coming of British soldiers. The people joined together. They defeated libertys enemies. Our unwaveringcommitment to freedom has been the cornerstone of a nation that has prospered and flourished.

Supporters of the campaign hope to collect 1 million signatures encouraging Congress to once again take up thetopic, but to replace the health reform legislation with less costly reforms without strict mandates.

The 10-year bill is estimated to cost $940 billion. But a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office states

that discretionary spending related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could cost an additional $115 billionpushing the cost to well over $1 trillion.

Better ideas are to crack down on so-called junk medical malpractice lawsuits, allowing citizens to purchaseinsurance across state lines, and promoting smaller group portability insurance, to name a few ideas supported by thegroup of conservatives.

Jon Caldara, president of the libertarian Independence Institute, also called attention to an initiative drive he ispushing that would exempt Coloradans from the federal mandate requiring citizens and business owners to buy healthinsurance or pay a penalty. The initiative would be on the 2010 ballot, but Caldara says he has only collected about 10,000signatures because of a law prohibiting citizens from paying circulators by the signature. Instead, circulators must be paidmostly by the hour. Critics say the law has resulted in quotes jumping in price by the equivalent of about $2 per signature.

Caldara and marijuana advocate Mason Tvert are suing the state over the law, arguing that the new law has drivenup the cost of collecting signatures so high that it has become almost impossible to run a citizen initiative. Caldara is

waiting to see what happens with the lawsuit, stating that if the ruling doesnt go his way, his initiative is in big trouble.Conservatives yesterday also called for support of a multi-state lawsuit Republican Attorney General John Suthers

entered Colorado into that aims to exempt states from provisions in the sweeping health care overhaul. The lawsuit allegesthat Congress does not have the authority to regulate interstate commerce that forces consumers to carry health insurance.But liberals yesterday said critics of the health reform legislation are siding with insurance companies over the people ofour state.

Bobby Clark, executive director of ProgressNow Colorado, says because of the health reform legislation morethan 68,000 small businesses in Colorado may qualify for a tax credit to help pay for health insurance, and 102,000Colorado seniors will receive a check this year to help cover prescriptions that fall in the so-called Medicare donut holeThousands of students who are about to graduate from Colorado colleges will be able to get health insurance through theirparents plans until age 26 as a result of the legislation, added Clark.

Thousands more kids can no longer be kicked off their insurance plans simply because they get sick, he said.

Why do these extremists want to take health care away from Colorado kids, seniors and small businesses?But Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, says the health reform legislation is only going to cost Coloradans at a timewhen families are struggling.

Colorado families and small businesses have been pushed to the brink with this economic crisis, saidMcNulty. Expensive and unnecessary programs like ObamaCare only increase the economic uncertainty normalpeople face.


6/18

6

Three 2010 ballotinitiatives promiseto change theColorado economy

Posted By Tom ClarkFebruary 4,

2010

Just when we thought

it was safe to go all outforthe economic recovery, ourfriends and aspirants to theDoug Bruce look-alike awardhave planted three initiativeson Novembers ballot that willcut taxes, eliminate publicdebt, and reduce your autoregistration. And thats notall.If you vote "Yes" inNovember, well startcollecting property taxes from

colleges, the Department ofWildlife, every water andsewer district, and localschools.

Not enough? If youvote "Yes" well even permit you to roll back your local public school property taxes through a local citizeninitiative AND well force the State of Colorado to pay for your local schools loss of your tax revenue.Im not kidding.

Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61 propose to do the above and much more. Well explorethese three proposals in a subsequent post. But if you think that the absurdity of such initiatives will result in anautomatic voter rejection, think again.

In 1992 Doug Bruce placed his TABOR initiative on the ballot. It had already been defeated twice

before. Responsible business leaders could not imagine that voters would pass it this time. Those who soughtfunds to run an opposing campaign were seen as the Henny Pennys sky is falling alarmists.

The historical context of TABORs passage in 1992 has an eerily similar to today. Back then Congressnarrowly defeated a "balanced budget" amendment. The nation was just beginning to see the final exit of avery difficult economy that saw a deep recession in the mid-80s. The electorate was angry, very angry.Congress had not listened to them. The national economy was in the midst of a restructuring for the comingDigital Age and jobs were hard to come by. Colorados Governor Romer was focused on a tax increase foreducation.

Since voters felt powerless to impact Congressional decisions they found a perfect outletTABOR. Itwas time to send a message, even if it went to the wrong address. TABOR passed. It was preceded by Bird-

Arveschoug (setting a 6 percent limit on state revenues) and followed by Amendment 23. The Gordian Knot inthe Constitution got tied TABOR, Gallagher (1982), and Amendment 23 placed the States budget on cruise

control, making it impossible for the General Assembly to manage government and to respond to economicchange.Fast forward to 2010. Both Republicans during the Bush years and Democrats today are in a spending

mood in the hundreds of billions of dollars. TARP, ARRA, corporate bailouts, and national healthcare haveleft the electorate very, very angry. They may well decide to send a message, again, to the wrong address.The populous appeal of 101, 60 and 61 will be a great way for frustrated, unemployed, or furloughed workersto vent their anger. If they do, we will be assured of climate change the business climate. But it wont bewarming.


7/18

7

Monday March 29, 2010

Personhood Initiative Certified For Colorado Ballot

DENVER, Colorado, March 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) The Colorado Personhood Amendments signatures havebeen certified, and the Personhood Amendment will be on the Colorado ballot in November, declared PersonhoodColorado on Friday.

Personhood Colorado sponsored the ballot initiative to amend the State Constitution recognizing the Personhood rights ofall humans, from their biological beginning to their natural death. The amendment states: "the term 'person' shall apply toevery human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

On March 4, the Colorado Secretary of State disclosed that 15,690 of the 79,648 signatures submitted by PersonhoodColorado were invalid. As allowed by Colorado law, volunteers then had 15 days to replace the invalid signatures withnew, valid voter signatures. In response, Personhood Colorado volunteers collected 47,114 signatures, three times asmany signatures as were required.

On Friday, March 26, the Colorado Secretary of State verified that the Personhood Amendment had submitted enoughsignatures to be on the November 26 ballot, citing that in the first submission, 60,357 of the 79,648 submitted signatures

were valid, and that in the 15 day curing period, 35,527 of the 47,114 submitted signatures were found valid. Therefore, ofthe 126,762 submitted signatures, 95,884 were found to be valid voter signatures, surpassing the required number of76,047 by nearly 20,000.

We are very thankful for our volunteers who worked tirelessly to ensure that the Personhood Amendment is on the 2010ballot, stated Gualberto Garcia-Jones, co-sponsor of the Personhood Amendment. We are counting on all of oursupporters and many volunteers to vote Yes on the Personhood Amendment, Amendment 62, in November.


8/18

8

A record 24 Colorado ballot issues filed on rafting amid lawmaker inactionBy Lynn BartelsThe Denver PostPOSTED: 03/27/2010 01:00:00 AM MDTUPDATED: 03/27/2010 09:53:41 AM MDT

A battle pitting river rafters against private landowners could shift from lawmakers to voters after both sides Friday filed a

record 24 proposed ballot initiatives on the subject before Friday's deadline for trying to get issues on the Novemberballot.

Rafters believe they should be allowed to use the rivers they have floated on for decades and are upset that the Senate

turned a bill on the issue into a study. Robert Hamel and Jay R.K. Kenney filed four measures on behalf of rafters.

Landowners believe they should be able to protect their property rights. John Leede and Charles Thrailkill, members of

the Creekside Coalition, filed 20 measures, limiting the use of rivers or targeting rafters with strict liability provisions.

"We knew this was coming, but not 20 measures," said Rep. Kathleen Curry, U-Gunnison, who sponsored the rafting bill.

House Bill 1188, dubbed "Row vs. Wade" by House Republicans, would allow rafters to float through private property with

incidental contact and not be accused of civil or criminal trespass.

Curry said the initiatives from both sides are part of what she calls "the ballot game." Groups that don't get their way on an

issue then go to the voters.

As the 5 p.m. deadline passed, 98 proposals had been filed since the last statewide election, all seeking spots on the

November ballot and dealing with topics including taxes, liquor sales, payday lending, renewable energy, health care and

rafting.

So far, only four three with ties to Colorado Springs anti-tax crusader Douglas Bruce have passed all the steps to be

placed on the ballot. Others are still in process, and some have been withdrawn or invalidated.

Curry and others speculated that the river-rafting proposals might be pulled if some sort of compromise is reached.

Outdoor enthusiasts said they filed their ballot proposals to ensure Colorado rivers stay open to the public.

"We're glad we did," said Duke Bradford, spokesman for the Colorado River Outfitters.

"A group of out-of-state developers looking to shut down Colorado rivers filed initiatives aimed at restricting and privatizing

our state's rivers. There's no doubt our freedoms are at stake this year and our businesses are in jeopardy."

But Eric Anderson, spokesman for the Creekside Coalition, said the group was formed in 1994 and represents farmers,

ranchers, anglers and private landowners.

"Until we're assured that the commercial rafters' one-sided proposals are not moving forward this year, we need to keep

our options open to ensure that property rights in Colorado are protected," he said.

Citizens wanting to put an issue on the ballot must follow a series of steps, starting by filing the proposal with the

Legislative Council. Then there are hearings on the title of the measure, the petition's wording has to be approved, and

signatures must be gathered and then checked by the secretary of state.


9/18

9

Ballot supporters need to collect 76,047 valid signatures, which is 5 percent of the total votes cast in the 2006 secretary of

state's race.

Lynn Bartels: 303-954-5327 [email protected]

http://coloradoindependent.com/category/ballot-measuresBallot MeasuresRSS

Court grants Bruce immunity to speak about Mr XByJOSEPH BOVEN7/2/10

The Colorado Springs District Attorney Dan May cut a deal with Douglas Bruce for his testimony in a grand jury hearing on irregularities surroundingthree controversial anti-tax initiatives. Bruce stonewalled the court Wednesday, afraid to incriminate himself and subject himself to possible later court

actions. Bruce was granted immunity to testify Thursday after being threatened [...]

Denver judge rules in favor of motion to hold Bruce in contempt of court

ByARMANDO MONTAO 6/23/10

District Judge Brian Whitney agreed to Attorney General John Suthers motion to hold former state representative andColorado anti-tax icon Doug Bruce in contempt for dodging 30 attempts to serve him with a court order asking him to

explain his involvement in three controversial ballot initiatives measures Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101.Attorney General [...]

Doug Bruce undergoes something like being served a subpoenaByARMANDO MONTAO 6/21/10

COLORADO SPRINGS Anti-tax crusader Doug Bruce, who has ducked more than 30 attempts by the state to serve him with a subpoena in the lastweeks, seemed surprised Monday at a ballot initiative hearing here when a man approached him from behind and dropped a folded piece of paper in hislap.Was Doug Bruce [...]

AG Suthers targets Bruce for contempt; Bruce rails against courts, mediaByARMANDO MONTAO 6/21/10

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers filed a motion in Denver District Court on Friday indicating he would attempt to hold anti-tax crusader DougBruce in contempt of court. Suthers is also seeking attorneys fees and other costs from Bruce for openly dodging requests to appear in court this springon a case looking into three [...]


10/18

10

Suthers to file contempt motion against Doug Bruce, Mr X

ByARMANDO MONTAO 6/11/10

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers plans to seek sanctions for contempt of court against elusiveColorado Springs anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce. The news suggests some consequence might be in theoffing for Bruce after he spent weeks flouting a court orderto produce documents and give testimony as

part of a case concerning three tax-slashing ballot initiatives secretly authored and illegally financed byBruce.

Doug Bruce ignored subpoenas; Gazette wont ignore BruceByJOHN TOMASIC6/10/10

Doug Bruce, Colorado Springs tax fighter and generally irascible human, is surely relishing defying the government and mocking the Colorado electionprocess as toothless. El Paso County sheriffs deputies have tried and failed to serve contempt subpoenas to Bruce 29 times in the past weeks for hisunabashed flouting of issue committee campaign finance rules [...]

HB 1370 aims to rein in anonymous campaign spending on ballot measuresByDAVID O. WILLIAMS5/12/10

A bill intended to clarify which groups are backing or opposing ballot measures as well as provide administrative law judges more enforcement leewayin campaign finance cases passed in the waning days of the legislative session.House Bill 1370 (pdf), which also addresses the timeline setting out when an issues committee needs to be [...]


11/18

11

The 2010 Victory Campaign is working to gain Adams/Broomfield Counties and take back all of Colorado forRepublicans this November.Our grassroots efforts focus on phone banking and door knocking from now to election day.

Your Regional Field Director is:

Anna Fitzer 2200 E. 104th Ave. Thornton, CO. (720) 318-7084 [email protected]

2010 Initiatives http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/2010Initiatives.cfm

Below are the proposed citizen-initiated initiatives for the November 2010 ballot that have beenchallenged in the Colorado Supreme Court. The party filings and the Courts corresponding orders(as they become available) are included. If the initiatives proceed past this step, the proponents of theinitiative then must gather signatures from Colorado voters. You can find more information about thesteps in the initiative process on the Colorado Legislative Branch site. And for information on all ofthis year's ballot initiatives please visit the Colorado Secretary of State's site.

Initiative 1 - Global Day Without Violence

Initiative 22- Secret Ballot Voting

Initiative 24 - Secret Ballot Voting by Employees

Initiative 37- Global Day Without Violence

Initiative 23 - Secret Ballot Voting

Initiative 45- Health Care Choice

Initiative 51 - Religious Liberty

Initiative 57- Utility Exemption from Renewable Energy

Initiative 58- Utility Exemption from Renewable Energy

Initiative 61, 62 & 63 - Interest Rate on Deferred Deposit Loans

Initiative 87- Use of Colorado Water Streams

Initiative 88 - Use of Colorado Water Streams

Initiative 89 - Use of Colorado Water Streams

Initiative 90- Use of Colorado Water Streams

Initiative 91 - Container Fee to Fund Water Preservation and Protection

Initiative 95- Renewable Energy Standards

Initiative 96- Petition from Cities and Counties to be Covered by Requirements of the Renewable Energy Standards

Initiative 97- Standards for Retail Electric Service Generation

Initiative 98- Standards for Retail Electric Service Generation


12/18

12

2010 Ballot Initiatives http://www.colofirechiefs.org/images/CSFCAHeader4.png

Proposition 101 "Concerning Limits on Government Charges"

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limits on government charges, and, in connectiontherewith, reducing vehicle ownership taxes over four years to nominal amounts; ending taxes on vehicle rentals and leases;

phasing in over four years a $10,000 vehicle sale price tax exemption; setting total yearly registration, license, and title charges

at $10 per vehicle; repealing other specific vehicle charges; lowering the state income tax rate to 4.5% and phasing in a furtherreduction in the rate to 3.5%; ending state and local taxes and charges, except 911 charges, on telecommunication servicecustomer accounts; and stating that, with certain specified exceptions, any added charges on vehicles and telecommunication

service customer accounts shall be tax increases?

Proposition 101 is a proposed statutory change that would reduce the State income tax, various motorvehicle fees and taxes and fees on telecommunication services. When fully implemented, theprovisions of this proposal would reduce State income tax revenues, State and local revenues from arange of sales taxes and vehicle fees, and State revenues from telecommunications charges and fees.

Proposition 101 Language

Preliminary Analysis of Proposition 101 (The Bell Policy Center)

Amendment 60 'Limit Property Taxes"

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning government charges on property, and, in connectiontherewith, allowing petitions in all districts for elections to lower property taxes; specifying requirements for property taxelections; requiring enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes but offsetting the revenues with lower tax rates; prohibitingenterprises and unelected boards from levying fees or taxes on property; setting expiration dates for certain tax rate and revenue


13/18

13

increases; requiring school districts to reduce property tax rates and replacing the revenue with state aid; and eliminatingproperty taxes that exceed the dollar amount included in an approved ballot question, that exceed state property tax laws,policies, and limits existing in 1992 that have been violated, changed, or weakened without state voter approval, or that were notapproved by voters without certain ballot language?

Amendment 60 would amend Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution ("TABOR") to add a newsection to establish additional limits on property taxes. This section will be in addition to all otherprovisions of TABOR. Some of the provisions of this proposal appear intended to override court

decisions interpreting TABOR (as it pertains to property taxes) and to roll back certain prior propertytax voter approvals under TABOR.

Amendment 60 Language

Amendment 61 "State and Local Debt Limitations"

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning limitations on government borrowing, and, in connectiontherewith, prohibiting future borrowing in any form by state government; requiring voter approval of future borrowing by local

governmental entities; limiting the form, term, and amount of total borrowing by each local governmental entity; directing allcurrent borrowing to be paid; and reducing tax rates after certain borrowing is fully repaid?

Amendment 61 would make sweeping changes in how the state and local governments can use andissue debt. It would ban the use of any kind of debt by the state of Colorado. It would also limit theamount of debt issued by local governments, require all local debt be approved by the voters in aNovember election, and require local governments to cut their tax rates equal to the average annualdebt payments as debts are repaid.

Amendment 61 Language

Preliminary Analysis of Amendment 61 (The Bell Policy Center)


14/18

14

Proposed 2012 ballot measure would change Colo. judicial systemBy Lynn BartelsThe Denver PostPOSTED: 07/05/2010 01:00:00 AM MDTUPDATED: 07/05/2010 01:48:18 AM MDT

Even if four state Supreme Court justices survive an attempt to remove them from the bench this election, another effort isunderway to seriously alter Colorado's judiciary system.

A proposed ballot measure for the 2012 election would change how Colorado's judges are appointed and how long they

could serve. It would trim the number of Supreme Court justices from seven to five and require Senate confirmation

hearings for appointees.

The proposal, although a long way from becoming reality, has caused consternation.

"It injects more politics into the system," said Chuck Turner, president of the Colorado Bar Association.

"All you have to do is look at what is happening in Washington today to see how people l ine up and make this a partisan

process," Turner said, referring to U.S. Supreme Court nominations before the Senate.

Those hearings are necessary, Turner said, because U.S. Supreme Court justices typically serve for life. In Colorado, he

said, judges come up for "retention" before the voters and can be removed from the bench.

The measure was filed by Dennis Polhill of Golden, a Republican who has filed a number of ballot measures, and Douglas

Campbell of Arvada, who has run for statewide office as the American Constitution Party candidate. Campbell also served

as former Rep. Douglas Bruce's aide in 2008.

Campbell said he doesn't think Senate confirmation hearings, which would follow committee hearings where the public

can testify, would politicize the process.

Polhill said he thinks "modest" changes are needed in a system that is already superior to many states.

"I'm very uncomfortable with the states that have partisan-elected judges," he said.

Colorado's system, in place since 1966, has received national praise. Nonpartisan nominating commissions interview

candidates when there is vacancy on the bench and send two or three names to the governor.

The person the governor picks must run in the next general election and again every time his or her term is up.

Coloradans in 2006 rejected term limits for judges, voting down Amendment 40. It would have limited appellate-court

justices to a maximum of 10 years on the bench.

This election, the group Clear the Bench Colorado is advocating voters reject all four Supreme Court justices up for

retention because of rulings it believes are unconstitutional.

Lynn Bartels: 303-954-5327 [email protected]


15/18

15

What could changeA ballot measure proposed for the 2012 election would change Colorado's process for selecting judges.

Currently: In case of a vacancy, a nonpartisan nominating commission gives the governor the names of two or three

candidates. The governor picks the new judge.

Proposed: The governor could ignore the list and pick someone else. The nominee would have to be confirmed by the

state Senate.

Currently: The terms for judges vary, including 10 years for Supreme Court justices and four years for county court

judges.

Proposed:All judicial terms would be four years.

Currently: Judges don't have term limits. When their terms expire, voters decide whether to keep them for another term

or kick them off the bench. Judges face mandatory retirement at age 72.

Proposed: Judges would still face retention elections, but appellate court judges would be limited to a maximum of 12

years on the bench. Local voters could determine whether to impose term limits for judges in their jurisdiction.

State and Federal candidate list for the 2010 Primary Election on August 10th

. All candidates a

listed but you can only vote for those in your political party affiliation.

FIRST MIDDLE LAST PARTY OFFICE DIST. STREET CITY STA

TE

ZIP

CODE

Andrew Romanoff DEM USSENATE STATE 887 S. Gilpin Street Denver CO 80209

Michael F. Bennet DEM USSENATE STATE 2830 E. 7th Avenue Parkway Denver CO 80206

Ken Buck REP US

S

ENATES

TATE 4425 83rd Avenue Greeely CO 80634Jane Norton REP USSENATE STATE 6372 S. Geneva Circle Englewood CO 80111

Maclyn "Mac" Stringer LIB USSENATE STATE 4941 S. Ensenada Way Centennial CO 80015

John Finger LIB US SENATE STATE 19545 Crows Nest Way Monument CO 80132

Jared Polis DEM US

CONGRESS

2 1655 Walnut Street, Unit

404

Boulder CO 80302

Stephen Bailey REP US

CONGRESS

2 6664 Cherokee Court Niwot CO 80503

Bob Brancato REP US

CONGRESS

2 534 Hart Street Firestone CO 80520

Ed Perlmutter DEM US

CONGRESS

7 2795 Juniper Dr Golden CO 80401

Ryan Frazier REP US

CONGRESS

7 19564 E. 59th Pl. Aurora CO 80019

LangS

ias REP US

CONGRESS

7 16584 W. 75th Pl. Arvada CO 80007

John Hickenlooper DEM GOVERNOR STATE 5101 Montview Blvd. Denver CO 80207

Dan Maes REP GOVERNOR STATE 29957 Lewis Ridge Road Evergreen CO 80439

Scott McInnis REP GOVERNOR STATE 3320 Crestview Way Grand

Junction

CO 81506

Dan "Kilo" Sallis LIB GOVERNOR STATE 8 Red Maple Littleton CO 80127Jaimes Brown LIB GOVERNOR STATE 6471 S. Marion St. Centennial CO 80121

Bernie Buescher DEM SECRETARY

OF STATE

STATE 730 Golfmore Grand

Junction

CO 81506

Scott Gessler REP SECRETARY STATE 2027 E. 11th Ave. Denver CO 80206


16/18

16

OF STATE

Cary Kennedy DEM TREASURER STATE 300 Jersey Denver CO 80220

J. J. Ament REP TREASURER STATE 4388 Christiansen Lane Littleton CO 80123

Walker Stapleton REP TREASURER STATE 4461 Preserve Parkway

South

Greenwood

Village

CO 80121

Stan Garnett DEM ATTORNEY

GENERAL

STATE 5656 Pennsylvania Place Boulder CO 80303

John Suthers REP ATTORNEY

GENERAL

STATE 573 Vista Grande Drive Colorado

Springs

CO 80906

Angelika Schroeder DEM BOARD OF

ED

2 1668 Bear Mtn. Dr. Boulder CO 80305

Kaye Ferry REP BOARD OF

ED

2 1007 Eagles Nest Circle Vail CO 81657

Karl A. Beck DEM BOARD OF

ED

5 2516 Wood Avenue, B Colorado Springs

Paul Lundeen REP BOARD OF

ED

5 19210 Sixpenny Lane Mounment CO 80132

William J. Townend DEM BOARD OF

ED

6 14965 E Radcliff Dr Aurora CO 80015

Debora Scheffel REP BOARD OF

ED

6 12067 Summit Ridge Rd Parker CO 80138

Melissa Hart DEM CU REGENT AT-

LARGE

2260 Clermont St Denver CO 80207

Steve Bosley REP CU REGENT AT-

LARGE

4370 Nelson Dr. Broomfield CO 80023

Lois Tochtrop DEM STATE

SENATE

24 9984 Appletree Place Thornton CO 80260

Luis Alvarez REP STATE

SENATE

24 3877 E. 113th Ave Thornton CO 80233

Laura Huerta DEM STATE

HOUSE

30 452 North 10th Avenue Brighton CO 80601

Maryellen Pollack DEM STATE

HOUSE

30 1331 Bridge St. Brighton CO 80601

Kevin Priola REP STATE

HOUSE

30 12255 Ursula St. Henderson CO 80640

Judy Solano DEM STATE

HOUSE

31 14789 Harrison Street Brighton CO 80602

Tom Janich REP STATE

HOUSE

31 9840 E 157th Ave Brighton CO 80602

Edward Casso DEM STATE

HOUSE

32 10021 Dillon Circle Commerce

City

CO 80022

Kaarl Hoopes REP STATE

HOUSE

32 8199 Welby Road, Unit 1703 Thornton CO 80229

Dianne Primavera DEM STATE

HOUSE

33 4596 Maroon Circle Broomfield CO 80023

Donald Beezley REP STATE

HOUSE

33 2698 Creekside Dr. Broomfield CO 80023

John F. Soper DEM STATE

HOUSE

34 235 Starlight Rd. Thornton CO 80260

Brian Vande Krol REP STATE

HOUSE

34 9807 Grove Circle Westminste

r

CO 80031

Cherylin Peniston DEM STATE

HOUSE

35 10344 Meade Loop Westminste

r

CO 80031

Edgar Antillon REP STATE

HOUSE

35 5440 Lowell Blvd. Denver CO 80221


17/18

17

NSRF Board of Directors Email AddressJohn Lefebvre President [email protected]

Jerry Cunningham Vice President [email protected]

Jan Hurtt Treasurer [email protected]

Phil Mocon Secretary [email protected]

Wanda Barnes Planning [email protected]

Dana West Communications [email protected]

Join the North Suburban Republican Forum on the Internet and Facebook:http://www.northsuburbanrepublicanforum.org/ http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=95611986640&_fb_noscript=1

NSRF MEETING TIME AND PLACE

We will be at Gander Mountain, 9923 Grant Street, Thornton, CO from 9:15-10:45 a.m. on the

second Saturday of each month in the employee training room. If you live in Adams County or

Denver's northern suburbs, come join us for lively spirited debate and to meet Republican

movers and shakers. Any candidate in attendance will always be given speaking time.

Directions to Gander Mountain:

Gander Mountain is a huge sporting goods store in the old Biggs, now Wal-Mart/Home Depot

shopping center just east of I-25 and south of 104th Ave. Just go in the front door, turnleft at the first aisle and follow it to the employee meeting room on the far left.

Yearly membership dues are $20, while a couple is $30. Make checks payable to NSRF. It only

costs $3 per person to attend the monthly meeting and a continental breakfast and beverage

(coffee, tea, orange juice or water) is included. A membership application is located on the

next page. Fill it out and bring it along with you.


18/18

18

The North SuburbanRepublican Forum

1149 W 102nd AveNorthglenn, CO 80260

Membership Application

This application is for:Regular Membership (individual)$20.00 feeRegular Membership (couples)$30.00 fee

Associate Membership$10.00 fee

Please Print.

Last Name:_____________________________First:_________________________MI:_____

Last Name: ____________ First:__ __ MI:_____

Address:___________________________________________________________________

City:___________________________________________Zip Code:____________________

Telephone:(________)____________-_____________________

E-Mail Address:_______________________________________@_____________________

Signature

Signature

Payment by: Cash Check

Date:__________________________2nd VP Treasurer

NSRF July 2010 Newsletter

Documents