DOCSLIB.ORG

Test Ballot Print Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Russell G. Ragsdale, City and County Clerk SAMPLE BALLOT CITY AND COUNTY OF BROOMFIELD, COLORADO NOVEMBER 2, 2010 Page 1 of 4 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTER: completely fill in the OVAL to the RIGHT of your choice like this If you tear, deface, or wrongly mark this ballot, return it to an election worker; or contact the Broomfield Elections Division at 303.438.6213 or email [email protected] to request a replacement. FEDERAL OFFICES REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 112TH STATE OF COLORADO UNITED STATES CONGRESS - GOVERNOR/LIEUTENANT UNITED STATES SENATOR DISTRICT 2 (Vote for One) GOVERNOR (Vote for One) (Vote for One Pair) Ken Buck Stephen Bailey John Hickenlooper Republican Republican Joseph Garcia Democratic Michael F. Bennet Jared Polis Democratic Democratic Dan Maes Bob Kinsey Curtis Harris Tambor Williams Green Libertarian Republican (Signed delcaration to limit service to no more than 2 terms) Maclyn "Mac" Stringer Jenna Goss Jaimes Brown Libertarian American Constitution Ken Wyble (Signed declaration to limit service to no more than 3 terms) Libertarian Charley Miller Unaffiliated (Chose not to sign declaration to limit service to 2 terms) Write-in Tom Tancredo J. Moromisato Pat Miller Unaffilliated American Constitution Jason Napolitano Jason R. Clark Independent Reform Victoria A. Adams (Signed declaration to limit service to no more than 2 terms) Unaffiliated Write-in Paul Noel Fiorino Heather A. McKibbin Unaffiliated Write-in Page 2 of 4 SECRETARY OF STATE STATE REPRESENTATIVE - Shall Judge Katherine R. Delgado of (Vote for One) DISTRICT 33 the 17th Judicial District be retained in (Vote for One) office? Scott Gessler Donald Beezley YES NO Republican Republican Shall Judge Thomas R. Ensor of the 17th Judicial District be retained in Bernie Buescher Dianne Primavera office? Democratic Democratic YES NO Amanda Campbell DISTRICT L REGIONAL Shall Judge Frederick M. Goodbee of American Constitution TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT the 17th Juditicial District be retained in DIRECTOR office? STATE TREASURER (Vote for One) YES NO (Vote for One) Lorraine Anderson Shall Judge Patrick T. Murphy of the 17th Judicial District be retained in Walker Stapleton office? Republican Bob Willson YES NO Cary Kennedy Shall Judge C. Vincent Phelps Jr. of Democratic the 17th Judicial District be retained in JUDGES office? ATTORNEY GENERAL Shall Justice Michael L. Bender of the YES NO (Vote for One) Colorado Supreme Court be retained in office? Shall Judge Jill-Ellyn Straus of the 17th Judicial District be retained in office? Stan Garnett YES NO Democratic Shall Justice Alex J. Martinez of the YES NO Colorado Supreme Court be retained in John Suthers office? Shall Judge Amy Elizabeth Bockman of Republican the Broomfield County Court be YES NO retained in office? STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION - Shall Justice Nancy E. Rice of the YES NO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 2 Colorado Supreme Court be retained in (Vote for One) office? "Ballot issues referred by the general assembly or any political subdivision Angelika Schroeder YES NO are listed by letter, and ballot issues Democratic initiated by the people are listed Shall Judge John Daniel Dailey of the numerically. A ballot issue listed as an Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in 'amendment' proposes a change to the Kaye Ferry office? Colorado constitution, and a ballot issue Republican listed as a 'proposition' proposes a YES NO change to the Colorado Revised Statutes. A 'yes' vote on any ballot REGENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF Shall Judge Richard L. Gabriel of the issue is a vote in favor of changing COLORADO - AT LARGE Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in current law or existing circumstances, (Vote for One) office? and a 'no' vote on any ballot issue is a vote against changing current law or Melissa Hart YES NO existing circumstances." Democratic Shall Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein of the REFERENDUM / INITIATIVES / Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in PROPOSITIONS Steve Bosley office? Republican YES NO STATE OF COLORADO Jesse B. Wallace Shall Judge David J. Richman of the Amendment P Libertarian Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in office? (CONSTITUTIONAL) YES NO Shall there be an amendment to section 2 of article XVIII of the Shall Judge C. Scott Crabtree of the 17th constitution of the state of Colorado, Judicial District be retained in office? concerning the regulation of games of chance by an authority specified by the YES NO general assembly? YES NO Page 3 of 4 Page 3 of 4 Amendment Q Amendment 61 Proposition 101 (STATUTORY) (CONSTITUTIONAL) (CONSTITUTIONAL) Shall there be an amendment to the Shall there be an amendment to section 3 Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning of article VIII of the constitution of the state Colorado constitution concerning limits on government charges, and, in of Colorado, concerning a process for limitations on government borrowing, and, connection therewith, reducing vehicle temporarily moving the seat of government in connection therewith, prohibiting future ownership taxes over four years to in a disaster emergency that substantially borrowing in any form by state government; nominal amounts; ending taxes on affects the ability of the state government requiring voter approval of future borrowing vehicle rentals and leases; phasing in to operate in the city and county of Denver, by local governmental entities; limiting the form, term, and amount of total borrowing over four years a $10,000 vehicle sale and, in connection therewith, requiring the price tax exemption; setting total yearly general assembly to convene in a by each local governmental entity; directing all current borrowing to be paid; and registration, license, and title charges temporary meeting location designated by at $10 per vehicle; repealing other the governor and authorizing the general reducing tax rates after certain borrowing is specific vehicle charges; lowering the assembly to determine by law a temporary fully repaid? state income tax rate to 4.5% and location for the seat of government of the YES NO state? phasing in a further reduction in the Amendment 62 rate to 3.5%; ending state and local taxes and charges, except 911 YES NO (CONSTITUTIONAL) charges, on telecommunication service customer accounts; and stating that, Amendment R Shall there be an amendment to the with certain specified exceptions, any (CONSTITUTIONAL) Colorado constitution applying the term added charges on vehicles and "person", as used in those provisions of the telecommunication service customer Shall there be an amendment to section 3 Colorado constitution relating to inalienable accounts shall be tax increases? rights, equality of justice, and due process (1) (b) of article X of the constitution of the YES NO state of Colorado, concerning an of law, to every human being from the exemption from property taxation for a beginning of the biological development of Proposition 102 (STATUTORY) possessory interest in real property if the that human being? actual value of the interest is less than or Shall there be an amendment to the equal to six thousand dollars or such YES NO Colorado Revised Statutes requiring amount adjusted for inflation? that only defendants arrested for a first Amendment 63 offense, non violent misdemeanor may be recommended for release or YES NO (CONSTITUTIONAL) actually released to a pretrial services program's supervision in lieu of a cash, Amendment 60 Shall there be an amendment to the property, or professional surety bond? (CONSTITUTIONAL) Colorado constitution concerning the right of all persons to health care choice, and, in YES NO connection therewith, prohibiting the state Shall there be an amendment to the CITY AND COUNTY OF independently or at the instance of the Colorado constitution concerning United States from adopting or enforcing BROOMFIELD government charges on property, and, in any statute, regulation, resolution, or policy connection therewith, allowing petitions in that requires a person to participate in a QUESTION 1A all districts for elections to lower property public or private health insurance or taxes; specifying requirements for property coverage plan or that denies, restricts, or Proposed Ordinance 1928 - Prohibition tax elections; requiring enterprises and penalizes the right or ability of a person to on the Operation of Medical Marijuana authorities to pay property taxes but make or receive direct payments for lawful Businesses. This ordinance prohibits offsetting the revenues with lower tax rates; health care services; and exempting from the operation of medical marijuana prohibiting enterprises and unelected the effects of the amendment emergency businesses such as commercial boards from levying fees or taxes on medical treatment required to be provided medical marijuana centers, optional property; setting expiration dates for certain by hospitals, health facilities, and health premises cultivation operations, and tax rate and revenue increases; requiring care providers or health benefits provided marijuana-infused products school districts to reduce property tax rates under workers' compensation or similar manufacturing facilities in the City and and replacing the revenue with state aid; insurance? County of Broomfield. The ordinance and eliminating property taxes that exceed also establishes penalties for violation the dollar amount included in an approved in accordance with Chapter 1-12 of the ballot question, that exceed state property YES NO Broomfield Municipal Code. tax laws, policies, and limits existing in For the Against
Recommended publications
  • Unfunded Mandates: a Unifying Principle of All Counties Ecounty Lines | November 2020

    Unfunded Mandates: a Unifying Principle of All Counties Ecounty Lines | November 2020

    Protection from Unfunded Mandates: A Unifying Principle of All Counties eCounty Lines | November 2020 There are various protections in place for local governments from unfunded mandates, both in state statute, as well as the execution of laws by the Governor and his departments. However, there is no absolute protection. Collectively, commissioners—assisted by Colorado Counties Inc.—are the strongest defense against unfunded mandates. A statute enacted in 1991 prohibits unfunded mandates, with some exceptions. “No new state mandate or an increase in the level of service…shall be mandated by the general assembly or any state agency on any local government unless the state provides additional moneys to reimburse such local government for the costs …such mandate or increased level of service for an existing state mandate shall be optional on the part of the local government” (CRS 29-1-304.5). The Colorado Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) took this statute a step further by allowing local governments to end their participation in a program, if funding was inadequate. “Except for public education through grade 12 or as required of a local district by federal law, a local district may reduce or end its subsidy to any program delegated to it by the general assembly for administration” (Article X, Section 20(9)). Unfortunately, in 1995 these two provisions were defeated twice via State Supreme Court decisions. In the first case, Weld County attempted to withhold their portion of payments towards a public assistance program administered through the county. However, the court did not find this payment to be a subsidy (as referenced in TABOR) and declared that as an arm of the state, counties were essentially part of the state and therefore could not subsidize themselves, so the exemption was not allowed [Romer v.

  • 2010 General Election

    Official Ballot State Offices State Offices Judiciary General Election GOVERNOR/LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 51 JUSTICE OF THE Larimer County, Colorado (Vote for One Pair) (Vote for One) COLORADO SUPREME COURT Tuesday, November 2, 2010 (Vote Yes or No) Shall Justice Alex J. Martinez of the John Hickenlooper / Joseph Garcia Brian DelGrosso Colorado Supreme Court be retained in Democratic Republican SAMPLE BALLOT office? Dan Maes / Tambor Williams Bill McCreary YES Republican Democratic NO Jaimes Brown / Ken Wyble STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 52 JUSTICE OF THE Libertarian (Vote for One) COLORADO SUPREME COURT Scott Doyle (Vote Yes or No) Clerk and Recorder Shall Justice Nancy E. Rice of the Colorado Tom Tancredo / Pat Miller Bob Morain Supreme Court be retained in office? American Constitution Republican Instructions to Voters YES Jason R. Clark / Victoria A. Adams John Kefalas NO To vote, fill in the oval completely. Please Unaffiliated Democratic use black ink. COURT OF APPEALS (Vote Yes or No) Correct Paul Noel Fiorino / Heather A. McKibbin STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 53 Unaffiliated (Vote for One) Shall Judge John Daniel Dailey of the Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in office? Randy Fischer YES Democratic NO Write-In If you mark in any of the incorrect ways SECRETARY OF STATE Dane Brandt COURT OF APPEALS shown below it may be difficult to determine (Vote for One) Republican (Vote Yes or No) your intent. Shall Judge Richard L. Gabriel of the Incorrect Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in Scott Gessler County Offices office? Republican COMMISSIONER - DISTRICT 1 YES (Vote for One) Bernie Buescher NO Democratic Adam Bowen COURT OF APPEALS Democratic (Vote Yes or No) If you make a mistake please ask for a new Amanda Campbell ballot.
  • ROCKY FLATS PLANT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN Environmental Restoration Program

    ROCKY FLATS PLANT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN Environmental Restoration Program

    ! DRAFT ROCKY FLATS PLANT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN Environmental Restoration Program U S Department of Energy Rocky Flats Plant Golden, Colorado January 1991 ADMlN RECORD January 22, 19% -1 . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A Overview 1 B Site Description 4 C Community Background 13 D Objectives 20 E Community Relations Activities 21 Appendix A List of Contacts and Interested Parties Appendix B IAG List of Rocky Flats Plant Hazardous Substances Appendix C Community Interview Plan Appendix D Information Repositories and Suggested Locations for Public Meetings Appendix E Public Comment Opportunities Appendix F List of Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Appendix G References Figure 1 General Location of the Rocky Flats Plant figure 2 Surface Water Drainage Patterns at the Rocky Flats Plant Figure 3 Location of Ground Water contamination at the Rocky Flats Plant in 1989 Figure 4 Location of Ground Water Monitoring Wells at the Rocky Flats Plant in 1989 \ \ ROCKY FLATS PLANT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN Rocky Flats Plant, Golden, Colorado A Overview The Rocky Flats Plant Communrty Relatrons Plan describes the mechanisms through which the Rocky Flats Plant near Golden, Colorado, will inform and involve the public in environmental restoration and related environmental activities at the facility Community interest in the plant has increased over the years since operations began in 1952 Current interest in plant activities is high, particularly concerning environmental and health issues, and public comments indicate that interest will likely remain high throughout
  • 2012 Political Contributions

    2012 Political Contributions

    2012 POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 2012 Lilly Political Contributions 2 Public Policy As a biopharmaceutical company that treats serious diseases, Lilly plays an important role in public health and its related policy debates. It is important that our company shapes global public policy debates on issues specific to the people we serve and to our other key stakeholders including shareholders and employees. Our engagement in the political arena helps address the most pressing issues related to ensuring that patients have access to needed medications—leading to improved patient outcomes. Through public policy engagement, we provide a way for all of our locations globally to shape the public policy environment in a manner that supports access to innovative medicines. We engage on issues specific to local business environments (corporate tax, for example). Based on our company’s strategy and the most recent trends in the policy environment, our company has decided to focus on three key areas: innovation, health care delivery, and pricing and reimbursement. More detailed information on key issues can be found in our 2011/12 Corporate Responsibility update: http://www.lilly.com/Documents/Lilly_2011_2012_CRupdate.pdf Through our policy research, development, and stakeholder dialogue activities, Lilly develops positions and advocates on these key issues. U.S. Political Engagement Government actions such as price controls, pharmaceutical manufacturer rebates, and access to Lilly medicines affect our ability to invest in innovation. Lilly has a comprehensive government relations operation to have a voice in the public policymaking process at the federal, state, and local levels. Lilly is committed to participating in the political process as a responsible corporate citizen to help inform the U.S.
  • Senate Section

    Senate Section

    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 116 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 166 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2020 No. 134 Senate The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was Our two countries, as you know, have the institutions of American life can- called to order by the President pro a centuries-old relationship. That rela- not stay totally shut down until our tempore (Mr. GRASSLEY). tionship will be further strengthened race for a vaccine hits the finish line. f by a comprehensive deal that presents Our Nation needs to smartly and economic opportunities for our farm- safely reopen while keeping up the PRAYER ers, our manufacturers, and our service medical battle. We need to get kids The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- providers to the benefit of both sides of safely back to school and adults safely fered the following prayer: the Atlantic. back to work without losing ground in Eternal God, You have taken care of I will continue to insist that an the healthcare fight. us in the years that have gone. We agreement reached between our two The coronavirus does not care that honor You for Your glory and strength. countries will allow us to reach our full we are divided. The coronavirus will May we place our hope in You and potential as trading partners, particu- not care if Washington Democrats de- never forget that You can also sustain larly when it comes to agricultural cide it suits their partisan goals to let us in the future.
  • Vicarious Aggravators Sam Kamin

    Vicarious Aggravators Sam Kamin

    Florida Law Review Volume 65 | Issue 3 Article 3 May 2013 Vicarious Aggravators Sam Kamin Justin Marceau Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Sam Kamin and Justin Marceau, Vicarious Aggravators, 65 Fla. L. Rev. 769 (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol65/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kamin and Marceau: Vicarious Aggravators VICARIOUS AGGRAVATORS Sam Kamin∗ & Justin Marceau∗∗ Abstract In Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was constitutional so long as it provided a non-arbitrary statutory mechanism for determining who are the worst of the worst, and therefore, deserving of the death penalty. As a general matter, this process of narrowing the class of death eligible offenders is done through the codification of aggravating factors. If the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more aggravating factors exists, then a defendant convicted of murder is eligible for the ultimate sentence. There is, however, a critical, unanswered, and under-theorized issue raised by the use of aggravating factors to serve this constitutionally mandated filtering function. Can death eligibility be predicated on vicarious aggravating factor liability—is there vicarious death penalty liability? A pair of cases, collectively known as the Supreme Court’s Enmund/Tison doctrine, recognize that there is no per se bar on the imposition of the death penalty for non-killing accomplices.
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures

    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures

    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
  • Jan G. Laitos

    Jan G. Laitos

    Jan G. Laitos John A Carver, Jr. Professor of Law Constitutional Law Environmental and Natural Resources Law B.A., 1968, Yale University J.D., 1971, University of Colorado S.J.D., 1975, University of Wisconsin Jan Laitos holds the John A. Carver Jr. Chair at the Sturm College of Law. He is a regional board member of the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute; and since 1981 a Trustee of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. He was Vice Chair of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. He was also the Director of the nationally ranked Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at the University of Denver Law School from 1981 until 2004. In 1996, he was given the University of Denver’s distinguished Teaching Award, and in 2005, he was selected a “DU Law Star.” Prior to joining the faculty at the Law school, he was the law clerk to the Chief Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, and an attorney with the Office of Legal Counsel within the United States Department of Justice. He is the author of several books and treatises, published by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, West Academic, Foundation Press, Aspen, Wolters Kluwer, Duke University Press, and Bradford Press. He has worked as a consultant on several cases decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Federal appeals, the Montana Supreme Court, the Nevada Supreme Court, the Idaho Supreme court, and the Colorado Supreme Court, and on several cert. petitions before the United States Supreme Court. He has lectured at Austral University Law School in Buenos Aires, Argentina, at the European Network for Housing Research Institute in Istanbul, Turkey, at the Central European University, Budapest, Hungary, the National University of Ireland at Galway, Ireland, the University of Oslo, Norway, the University of Tarragona, Spain, the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and the University of Western Sydney, Australia.
  • Eleni Kounalakis (Lt. Governor) Josh Harder (U.S

    Eleni Kounalakis (Lt. Governor) Josh Harder (U.S

    California Gavin Newsom (Governor) Eleni Kounalakis (Lt. Governor) Josh Harder (U.S. House, CA-10) TJ Cox (U.S. House, CA-21) Katie Hill (U.S. House, CA-25) Katie Porter (U.S. House, CA-45) Harley Rouda (U.S. House, CA-48) Mike Levin (U.S. House, CA-49) Ammar Campa-Najjar (U.S. House, CA-50) Buffy Wicks (State Assembly, District 15) Colorado Jared Polis (Governor) Dianne Primavera (Lt. Governor) Phil Weiser (Attorney General) Jena Griswold (Secretary of State) Tammy Story (State Senate, District 16) Jessie Danielson (State Senate, District 20) Brittany Pettersen (State Senate, District 22) Faith Winter (State Senate, District 24) Dylan Roberts (State House, District 26) Dafna Michaelson Jenet (State House, District 30) Shannon Bird (State House, District 35) Rochelle Galindo (State House, District 50) Julie McCluskie (State House, District 61) Georgia Stacey Abrams (Governor) Sarah Riggs Amico (Lt. Governor) Matthew Wilson (State House, District 80) Shelly Hutchinson (State House, District 107) Illinois J.B. Pritzker (Governor) Juliana Stratton (Lt. Governor) Kwame Raoul (Attorney General) Sean Casten (U.S. House, IL-6) Brendan Kelly (U.S. House, IL-12) Lauren Underwood (U.S. House, IL-14) Iowa Deidre DeJear (Secretary of State) Tim Gannon (Secretary of Agriculture) Kristin Sunde (State House, District 42) Jennifer Konfrst (State House, District 43) Eric Gjerde (State House, District 67) Laura Liegois (State House, District 91) Maine Louis Luchini (State Senate, District 7) Laura Fortman (State Senate, District 13) Linda Sanborn (State Senate, District 30) Nevada Jacky Rosen (U.S. Senate) Susie Lee (U.S. House, NV-3) Steven Horsford (U.S.
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States

    In the Supreme Court of the United States

    NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States JOHN HICKENLOOPER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Petitioner, v. ANDY KERR, COLORADO STATE REPRESENTATIVE, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI JOHN W. SUTHERS Attorney General DANIEL D. DOMENICO Solicitor General Counsel of Record MICHAEL F RANCISCO FREDERICK YARGER Assistant Solicitors General MEGAN PARIS RUNDLET Senior Assistant Attorney General Office of the Colorado Attorney General 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 [email protected] 720-508-6559 Counsel for Petitioner Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 1992, the People of Colorado enacted the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR), which amended the state constitution to allow voters to approve or reject any tax increases. In 2011, a group of plaintiffs, including a small minority of state legislators, brought a federal suit claiming that TABOR causes Colorado’s government to no longer be republican in form, an alleged violation of the Guarantee Clause, Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution. The court of appeals held that the political question doctrine does not bar federal courts from resolving this kind of dispute and that the Legislator-Plaintiffs have standing to redress the alleged diminution of their legislative power. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether, after this Court’s decision in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), Plaintiffs’ claims that Colorado’s government is not republican in form remain non-justiciable political questions.
  • State Election Results, 2005

    State Election Results, 2005

    Official Publication of the Abstract of Votes Cast for the 2005 Coordinated 2006 Primary 2006 General To the Citizens of Colorado: The information in this abstract is compiled from material filed by each of Colorado’s sixty- four County Clerk and Recorders. This publication is a valuable tool in the study of voting patterns of Colorado voters during the 2005 Coordinated, 2006 Primary, and 2006 General Election. As the State’s chief election officer, I encourage the Citizens of Colorado to take an active role in our democratic process by exercising their right to vote. Mike Coffman Colorado Secretary of State Table of Contents GLOSSARY OF ABSTRACT TERMS .............................................................................................. 4 DISCLAIMER ......................................................................................................................... 6 DIRECTORY .......................................................................................................................... 7 United States Senators .........................................................................................................................7 Congressional Members .......................................................................................................................7 Governor ..........................................................................................................................................7 Lieutenant Governor ...........................................................................................................................7
  • State Election Results, 1992

    State Election Results, 1992

    To: Citizens of Colorado From: Natalie Meyer, Secretary of State Subject: 1992 Abstract of Votes I am pleased to publish the 1992 Abstract of Votes Cast which provides as complete a picture of Colorado voting behavior as our data will provide. Compiled from material filed at our office, this publication profiles the voting patterns of Colorado voters in the presidential primary, primary and the general election. Some 1,597,186 electors exercised their voice at the polls in November 1992. This abstract is dedicated to those who realize that every ·voice is critical and counted in determining the direction of local and national governmental affairs. Our system of government would cease to exist without a concerned constituency who participates at every level of the electoral process. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Glossary of Abstract Terms 1 Directory of Elected and Appointed Officials 2 Presidential Primary Election 42 Primary Election Abstract U.S. Senate 48 U.S. Congress 51 State Board of Education 55 Regents of the University of Colorado 56 State Senate 59 State Representative 63 District Attorneys 80 General Election Abstract Presidential Electors 86 U.S. Senate 88 U.S. Congress 90 State Board of Education 91 Regents of the University of Colorado 93 State Senate 94 State Representative 96 District Attorneys 106 RTD District Directors 110 Moffat Tunnel Commissioners 112 Judicial 113 Ballot Issues 126 Registered Voters{furnout 142 ii iii GLOSSARY OF ABSTRACT TERMS Assembly Meeting of delegates of a political party held to designate candidates for nomination at a primary election. Assemblies are held every two years.