Denver November 2006 Election
Dazed and confused coverage of the Denver November 2006 Election


Subscribe to "Denver November 2006 Election" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.



  Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Peter Blake analyzes the issues around Marc Holtzman's path to the primary ballot in August in his column in today's Rocky Mountain News. He writes, "But Holtzman will start collecting signatures this week, and although he claims to be keeping the assembly as an option, many believe he'll stick to petitions. That's because he needs at least 30 percent of the state delegate vote May 20 to get on the Aug. 8 ballot, and he could fall short. If he doesn't get at least 10 percent, then it doesn't matter how many signatures he turns in by the May 25 deadline. They won't count. He should easily get the 10 percent, but why look weak if you don't have to?"

Category: Denver November 2006 Election

6:35:08 AM    comment []

From today's Denver Post: "Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter unveiled an energy policy Tuesday that he said would combat rising gasoline and home-heating costs, as well as create new jobs. His plan emphasizes energy self-sufficiency by promoting alternatives, encouraging cleaner ways of extracting and using fossil fuels, and rewarding efficiency and conservation. Ritter also proposed forming a 'Colorado Clean Energy Coalition,' to advise and guide his administration on advancing energy technology and investments in energy opportunities."

Category: Denver November 2006 Election

6:14:39 AM    comment []

There could be four ballot issues this fall around the issue of gay marriage, according to the Rocky Mountain News. From the article, "Another gay-rights-related measure could join three others proposed for the November ballot, setting up an emotional election-year debate over how the law should treat same-sex couples. The latest entry is by the gay- rights group Coloradans for Fairness and Equality. It has filed paperwork for a November ballot initiative that says 'domestic partnerships' between gay couples are not similar to marriage. That's an effort to counter another ballot measure, which would prohibit the state from creating any legal status similar to marriage for same-sex couples. That language is backed by Will Perkins, author of ill-fated Amendment 2 in 1992, and Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud. Both measures have to attract about 68,000 valid voter signatures to make the ballot, as does a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, effectively banning gay marriage. A proposal establishing domestic partnerships for gay couples is working its way through the legislature. If it passes, it also would be on the ballot...

"Four measures that would affect gay rights are working their way toward the November ballot. Three are proposed constitutionalamendments, and one is a statute under consideration in the legislature. A brief description of each:

"House Bill 1344: Would allow domestic partnerships to be registered by the state. The effect would be to extend certain benefits, protections and responsibilities to same-sex couples. That would include the right to inherit property from a partner, family leave benefits, medical decision-making and others.

"Colorado Marriage Amendment: A constitutional amendment that says, 'Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.' The amendment wouldn't prohibit same-sex couples from receiving benefits allowed by law, but it would prohibit same-sex relationships from being officially sanctioned as marriages.

"No Legal Status Amendment: A constitutional amendment that would prohibit the state from creating any legal status similar to marriage for a same-sex couple. The amendment is an attempt to trump the domestic partnership measure in HB 1344.

"Domestic Partnership Amendment: A constitutional amendment that would make a same-sex domestic partnerships "a unique and valued relationship" that is not similar to marriage. The intent is to allow voters to say domestic partnerships don't violate the one-man, one-woman marriage definition. It is meant to counter the No Legal Status Amendment."

Here's the coverage from the Denver Post.

Category: Denver November 2006 Election

5:46:15 AM    comment []

Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2006 John Orr.
Last update: 5/2/06; 6:52:29 AM.

April 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Mar   May