webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Polis, Jared GOV

2018 GOV!

28th amend?

100/90%

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/jared-polis

-=-=

AN 8 26

In August 2025 — roughly seven months into his second presidency — Donald Trump threatened Colorado officials with "harsh measures" if they didn't release former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters from prison, where she was serving time for criminal charges related to her efforts to overturn 2020's presidential election results. Now, newly revealed e-mails, according to MS NOW's Steve Benen, shed light on the steps Trump took to punish the State of Colorado for Peters' incarceration.

Highlighting one of Benen's August 17 opinion columns in a post on X, formerly Twitter, journalist Kyle Griffin notes, "Emails revealed in court: As Trump publicly condemned Colorado for incarcerating convicted felon and election denier Tina Peters, the White House organized an urgent 'brainstorm call' with five federal agencies — with the goal of exploring ways to curtail federal support to Colorado. The next day, federal agencies announced they were canceling hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants for Colorado projects."

Benen, in his column, points out that the "degree to which" Trump "was serious" about punishing Colorado because of Peters "is still coming into focus."

"The New York Times reported, late last week, for example, that as Trump publicly condemned the Rocky Mountain State for incarcerating a convicted felon, the White House organized an urgent 'brainstorm call' with five federal agencies, with the goal of exploring ways to curtail federal support to Colorado," Benen explains. "The meeting, evidently, was a success — at least as far as the administration was concerned."

Trump's "assault against the Democratic-run state," Benen observes, ranged from cutting off transportation funds to taking "steps to dismantle a renowned science lab in Colorado."

"But while the pattern is not new, what is new is the newly disclosed document: We're now aware of an e-mail, sent by White House special assistant Emily Underwood just days after the president published a series of messages related to Peters, which reinforces rather obvious suspicions that the administration's campaign against Colorado was not a mere coincidence: Team Trump set out to punish the state, and then took a variety of steps to execute that plan ... It's worth emphasizing that the gambit — what was effectively an extortion plot, hatched by the White House against an American state — proved effective."

Benen continues, "In mid-May, Polis succumbed to pressure and announced his commutation for Peters, a convicted felon who illegally tried to use her office in pursuit of pro-Trump election conspiracy theories. But the fact that the scheme worked doesn't make it any more defensible."

---

OMG AN 3 26

President Donald Trump is a Republican and Colorado Governor Jared Polis is a Democrat, but it looks like Polis is bending to Trump’s pressure that Polis commute the sentence of an election denier — and members of both parties are furious at Polis

"Justice in Colorado and America needs to be applied evenly, you never know when you might need to depend on the rule of law," Polis wrote on the social platform X about the possibility of pardoning or commuting the sentence of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters. "This is the context I am using as I consider cases like this that have sentencing disparities."

Polis argued in his post that Peters’ sentence is analogous to that of a former state lawmaker recently sentenced to probation and community service after being convicted of one of the same crimes. Yet as journalist Jordan Rubin pointed out at MS NOW, those two cases were very different in important ways.

“Jaquez Lewis was convicted of one count of attempting to influence a public servant and three counts of forgery,” Rubin wrote, explaining that Lewis forged letters to refute allegations she was mistreating her staff and expressed remorse. By contrast, Peters has never expressed remorse for much more serious crimes — per the state conviction, “While serving as the Clerk and Recorder of Mesa County, Ms. Peters deceived county employees to obtain credentials that allowed an unauthorized person to access Mesa County’s voting system after the 2020 election.” He added “even after her conviction, she reaffirmed her position that her conduct was justified by her conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.”

Judge Matthew Barrett, who sentenced Peters, said “this case was about your corrupt conduct and how no one is above the law.” He added, “I consider deterrence in sentencing that is both general and specific that the sentence I impose must deter Ms. Peters from engaging in similar conduct in the future, but it also must deter others generally from engaging in this type of conduct.”

Peters was convicted of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant and one count each of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with requirements of Colorado’s secretary of state. She allowed QAnon conspiracy theorists to access sensitive voter information in the hope to find evidence of voter fraud, which whenever produced.

“The suggestion that everyone convicted under the same statute should receive the same sentence overlooks why the legislature created a [sentencing] range in the first place: no two crimes and no two defendants are the same,” said Dan Rubinstein, the Republican prosecutor who worked to convict Peters. He added that modifying her sentence “would be a gross injustice to the affected citizens I represent.” In addition to being tried by a Republican prosecutor, Peters is in a county that Trump won by 28 percentage points.

Rubin himself wrote, “Still, as with another of Trump’s pardons for 2020 election–related crimes, the legally limp move sent a strong signal that the president supports the subversive behavior taken on his behalf and, as importantly, that he’ll continue to support such behavior in the future however he can.”

Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, said on Thursday that he shares Rubin’s concern.

“Tina Peters knowingly broke the law, undermined our elections, and was rightfully convicted by a jury of her peers,” Bennet said. “At a moment like this, we can’t capitulate to a lawless Administration.”

By contrast Peters’ lawyer Peter Ticktin insists that “(Peters) has been made to stay in prison because people are afraid of what she would say.” He also described her as a “political prisoner.”

===

===

AN SN 11 25

When the Trump administration requested that Colorado transfer custody of Tina Peters from the state to the federal government, there was only one plausible response: Not in a million years.

But Gov. Jared Polis seems to have a different idea.

For some mysterious reason, he appears to think there might be some merit to the request. No matter how he comes down on the matter, he has already undermined the rule of law and insulted every local official who helps manage honest elections in the face of right-wing extremist threats.

Peters is serving time in state prison, and for good reason: The Republican former Mesa County clerk was the linchpin in a plan to breach the security of her own election equipment to prove the “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen. She was convicted in state court of multiple counts related to the scheme, including four felonies, and sentenced to almost nine years behind bars.

The local district attorney who prosecuted the case was a Republican in a county that favored Trump by 28 percentage points, and there is no credible reason to think the conviction was unjust or compromised by politics.

But in MAGA America, what matters more than anything is personal loyalty to President Donald Trump, which Peters offers in ample measure. That’s why the president has repeatedly demanded that she be released, claiming preposterously that “she did nothing wrong, except catching the Democrats cheat in the Election” and promising “harsh measures” if Colorado fails to comply.

In March, J. Bishop Grewell, then the acting U.S. attorney for Colorado, and Peter McNeilly, then an assistant U.S. attorney for Colorado, were among three Justice Department officials who told a federal judge in Colorado they were reviewing the state’s prosecution of Peters. This month, Trump’s Bureau of Prisons formally made a request to the Colorado Department of Corrections to transfer her to federal custody.

The request is corrupt and deserves no consideration. Trump wants to aid a criminal ally, as he’s already done so many times since January.

“One is only left to assume that either the Trump administration wants her moved to federal custody so that they could somehow then release her outside of the jurisdiction of Colorado, which would be a blockbuster obstruction of justice by the U.S. government against a lawful state criminal order, or they want to put her in federal custody to give her some improved conditions,” lawyer Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket, said during aninterview with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen.

Yet more than a week after the Trump administration sent its request to the state, Polis’ office in a statement to Newsline said he was still “reviewing” the request.

There’s nothing to review. As stated by Phil Weiser, the Democratic Colorado attorney general, and Dan Rubinstein, the Republican district attorney who prosecuted Peters, in a joint letter last week imploring Polis to deny the administration’s request, Trump “has no legal basis to interfere with the sentence in this case,” and the request is an attempt “to circumvent Colorado’s sovereignty.”

Even if Polis ultimately decides to deny the request, his long silence in the face of such brazen lawlessness has already made him look weak, and it has done real damage. During a Tuesday press conference, when a bipartisan group of local election officials from around the state exhorted Polis to deny the request, county clerks said they have experienced an “immediate uptick in concerns about safety” in relation to the Peters case.

The clerks said they have yet to even hear from Polis, even though they sent him a letter last week requesting a meeting with him about Peters.

This is hardly the first time Polis has appeared to accommodate Trump or fully sided with team MAGA. His administration has been all too eager to supply sensitive information about Colorado residents to ICE as part of Trump’s inhumane mass deportation program.

In the Peters case, he risks undermining the rule of law and fueling doubts about voting in a state where brave Democratic and Republican officials have done so much to defend free and fair elections.

He owes it to anyone who hopes systems of justice can withstand authoritarian attacks to quickly, forcefully and publicly tell the Trump administration that Peters isn’t going anywhere.

---

08/25/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

an 8 25

Many rural Coloradans, especially in agricultural communities, feel looked down on by their urban counterparts. One cattle rancher I spoke to put it plainly. “It’s an attitude … we are the idiots … we are the dumb farmers … we don’t really matter.”

The sentiment is also portrayed in popular culture such as the hit TV show “Yellowstone.”

“It’s the one constant in life. You build something worth having, someone’s gonna try to take it,” says patriarch John Dutton. He was facing repeated threats by developers from “the city” to annex his land for a luxury hotel and resort development.

As a policy scholar, I’ve talked to and interviewed many dozens of people in rural areas in Colorado. I’ve also read hundreds of newspaper articles and watched hundreds of hours of legislative testimony that capture the sentiment of rural people being left behind, left out and snubbed by their urban counterparts.

Recently, I studied the divide between rural and urban Coloradans by looking at their responses to four statewide policies. A designated day to forgo eating meat, two political appointees and the ongoing wolf reintroduction.

These policies, while specific to Colorado, are symptoms of something larger. Namely, an ever-urbanizing, globalized world that rural, agricultural citizens feel is leaving them behind.

‘MeatOut’ or misstep?

My expertise doesn’t just come from my research – I’ve lived it.

I grew up in a rural community in Elbert County, Colorado, about an hour- and-a-half southeast of Denver.

In early 2021, Gov. Jared Polis declared via proclamation that March 20 would be a “MeatOut Day.” For health and environmental reasons, Colorado residents were encouraged to forgo meat for a single day.

Supported by the Farm Animal Rights Movement, MeatOuts have been promoted across the U.S. since the 1980s. Typically, gubernatorial proclamations, of which hundreds are passed each year and are completely ceremonial and devoid of any long-term formal policy implications, go largely unnoticed. And in Denver, Colorado’s metropolitan center, this one did too.

Not so in rural Colorado.

My neighbors in Elbert County promptly responded with outrage, flying banners and flags declaring their support for agriculture and a carnivorous diet.

One rancher from Nathrop painted a stack of hay bales to say, “Eat Beef Everyday.”

Communities all over the state, and even in neighboring states, responded with “MeatIns,” where they gathered to eat meat and celebrate agriculture and the rural way of life. They also coupled these events with fundraisers, for various causes, for which hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised across the state. While Polis backed off the MeatOut after 2021, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has, just this year, supported a similar “Eat Less Meat” campaign, prompting similar rural outrage.

Did I mention there are nearly 36,000 cattle in Elbert County? This is relatively typical of a rural Colorado county, particularly on the Plains.

In Colorado, 2.7 million cattle are raised annually, with a value of US$4.5 billion. The industry is consistently the top agricultural commodity and the second-largest contributor to Colorado’s GDP, at about $7.7 billion per year.

In early March 2021, Polis declared March 22 “Colorado Livestock Proud Day,” in response to the backlash.

Other policies

This came on the heels of several policies supported by Polis prior to the MeatOut controversy that critics considered anti-agriculture.

In 2020, he appointed Ellen Kessler, a vegan and animal rights activist, to the State Veterinary Board. Kessler criticized 4-H programs, designed to educate youth on agriculture and conservation, on her social media, insisting they “don’t teach children that animal lives matter.” Kessler resigned in March 2022, just days before she was cited for 13 counts of animal cruelty. More recently, in May 2025, Polis appointed Nicole Rosmarino to head the State Land Board. Rosmarino has ties to groups that oppose traditional agricultural practices, historically a key component of Colorado State Land Board operations.

Then came wolf reintroduction, passed by urban voters by just under 57,000 votes in the 2020 general election and supported by the governor. Those in support advocated for a return to natural biodiversity; wolves were hunted to extinction in the 1940s.

Rural residents voted decidedly against the initiative. Despite much legislative and grassroots action to oppose it, wolves were reintroduced in December 2023 in various areas along the Western Slope, in close proximity to many ranches. Several cattle have since been killed by wolves. Ever since, rural interests have been working to overturn wolf reintroduction on the 2026 ballot.

An American mess

Rural residents in Colorado have told me they feel excluded. This is not new or exclusive to Colorado, but a story as old as America itself.

University of Wisconsin political scientist Katherine J. Cramer wrote about this rural exclusion in Wisconsin, calling it “rural resentment.” Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild called it “stolen pride.” In their book, Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, and Paul Waldman, a longtime journalist, characterize it as “white rural rage.”

It’s a dynamic that descends from slavery. Isabel Wilkerson, in her book “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” demonstrates that while Black Americans have historically been relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy of an American caste system, poor white people are strategically positioned just above them but below white Americans of higher socioeconomic status. As Wilkerson explains, this is a durable system sustained by norms, laws and cultural expectations that feel “natural.” But they are entirely constructed and designed by the American upper class to intentionally exploit resentment of working-class white people.

The result is what sociologist Michael M. Bell calls a “spatial patriarchy” that characterizes rural America as dumb, incapable, racist, poor and degraded as “white trash.”

This spatial patriarchy is as old as industrialization and urbanization. One of the first policy iterations was rural school consolidation during the turn of the 20th century, designed to modernize schools and make them more efficient. Urban policymakers were influenced by eugenics and the assumption that rural schools “were populated by cognitively deficient children whose parents had not been smart enough or fortunate enough to leave the decaying countryside,” according to sociologist Alex DeYoung.

So, states around the country consolidated schools, the lifeblood of rural communities. Where a school closed, the town often died, as in small towns, schools are not just socioeconomic hubs but centers of cultural and social cohesion.

Environmental impact

The same concept – that urban policymakers know better than rural Americans – is manifest in the modern environmental movement. Like with the MeatOut, rural communities also distrust environmental policies that, in their view, intentionally target a rural way of life. Rural communities take the position that they’ve been made to bear the brunt of the transformations of the global economy for generations, including those that deal with energy and the environment.

For example, environmentalists frequently call for lowering meat consumption and enacting livestock taxes to lower global greenhouse gas emissions.

But, there’s a huge, untapped potential for environmental policies that use language consistent with rural attitudes and values, such as ideas about conservation and land stewardship. Political scientists Richard H. Foster and Mark K. McBeth explain, “Rural residents perceive, probably correctly, that environmental ‘outsiders’ are perfectly willing to sacrifice local economic well-being and traditional ways of life on the altar of global environmental concerns.” They instead suggest “emphasizing saving resources for future generations” so that rural communities may continue to thrive.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations attribute between 18% to 24% of greenhouse gas emissions to agriculture, while the International Panel on Climate Change places the estimate closer to 10%. However, agricultural producers point out that, while they may be responsible for that 10%, just 100 companies, such as BP and ExxonMobil, have produced 70% of all emissions. Agricultural producers say policies such as livestock taxes would disproportionately impact small-scale farmers and intensify rural inequality.

Rural communities have the distinct feeling that urban America doesn’t care whether they fail or flourish. Nearly 70% of rural voters supported Trump in the 2024 presidential election. He won 93% of rural counties. Rural Americans feel left behind, and for them, Trump might be their last hope.

Kayla Gabehart, Assistant Professor of Environmental Policy, *Michigan Technological University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

---

---}:

an 11 24

In the wake of Republican Donald Trump’s reelection to the presidency, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis is helping to lead a new initiative that aims to protect state-level democratic institutions against federal overreach.

Polis, a Democrat with two more years in his term, is co-chairing Governors Safeguarding Democracy, alongside Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, also a Democrat.

“We founded GSD because we know that simple hope alone won’t save our democracy. We need to work together, especially at the state level, to protect and strengthen it,” Polis said during a call with reporters on Tuesday.

The two governors did not offer details on who else is part of the initiative, though they emphasized it’s nonpartisan and said they have engaged in outreach to Republican governors across the country.

The action items are vague. Pritzker described the goal as one to “leverage our collective strength, experience and institutional knowledge to drive policies that protect the rule of law” among the states.

“We’ll design and implement affirmative strategies to protect the rule of law and deliver for people in the states. We’ll work to reinforce key state institutions to protect executive agencies, elections, state courts and other democratic bodies. Then we’ll develop playbooks to enable governors and their teams to anticipate and swiftly respond to emerging threats,” he said.

When fully implemented, the initiative will be a “peer opportunity for governors to learn from one another on best practices and policies,” Polis said.

GSD was born out of anxiety that a second Trump presidential term will erode democratic institutions and roll back federal protections in such areas as the environment, health care and civil rights. Some observers worry about possible threats to the integrity of the nation’s election system, independent judiciary and overall civil society. Trump himself pledged to be a “dictator” on the first day of his term to enact campaign promises, and former top staffers in the first Trump administration, such as John Kelly, have said he fits into the definition of fascist.

The new Trump administration is planning an unprecedented mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, an effort that would involve use of the National Guard. Pritzker said the challenge this poses to states is “exactly the kind of question this group would be considering.”

Polis agreed that such a policy would likely not be allowed under the federal code that governs the National Guard and that, as governors, they would not cooperate.

“In terms of safeguarding democracy, making sure that the U.S. military is not used for police actions domestically and is used to defend our freedoms abroad is very consistent with our Constitution, as well as the law,” Polis said.

GSD will be supported by Governors Action Alliance, a new nonpartisan organization, and funded by philanthropic donations. Neither Pritzker nor Polis disclosed donors.

---

worst is props?!

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/07/midterm-elections-green-ballot-measures-fossil-fuel/

intercept

no lnx

tHE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY SPENT $100 MILLION TO KILL GREEN BALLOT MEASURES IN THREE STATES — AND WON

One clear takeaway from the ballot initiatives in Arizona, Colorado, and Washington state is that fossil fuel money can buy elections.

Kate Aronoff

November 7 2018,

PATRICIA NELSON WAS eager for a fresh start when she moved her family from Louisiana back home to Weld County, Colorado, in 2016. Soon after, Nelson’s friend encouraged her to come out to a meeting where Lisa McKenzie, an environmental chemist and epidemiologist at the Colorado School of Public Health, was presenting her research on the health impacts of oil and natural gas drilling.

Weld County has one of the highest concentrations of oil and gas wells in the country — 23,000 within county limits. Its air quality carries an “F” rating from the American Lung Association, with infant mortality rates twice as high as those in surrounding counties. With around 50,000 active wells overall, Colorado just surpassed California to become America’s third-largest oil and gas producer after Texas and North Dakota.

“It was a crash course in fracking,” Nelson told me by phone. Colorado law, she learned, states that drilling operations have to be 1,000 feet away from school buildings, but that ordinance — known as a setback — doesn’t include surrounding school properties, like playgrounds or soccer fields. There, as McKenzie would explain, kids playing and running around breathe harder and heavier, increasing the amount of poisoned air that enters their lungs and bloodstream.

All of this hit too close to home: As she also learned, oil companies had just been approved to open 24 new drill sites near her then-4-year-old son Diego’s school, the kindergarten through third grade campus of Bella Romero Academy; the drilling would take place just behind the fourth through eighth grade campus, where her niece and nephew were students. The decision to drill near Bella Romero at all — where 87 percent of attendees are students of color, and 90 percent fall below the poverty line — was made after parents at an overwhelmingly white school refused to have the same rigs in their kids’ backyards.

Shocked by what she discovered, Nelson joined a coalition that would later become known as Colorado Rising and traveled around the state, telling people about the stakes at her son’s school. Colorado Rising’s work included a push for Proposition 112, a ballot measure to mandate a 2,500-foot setback zone between drill sites and homes, schools, and other vulnerable areas. That measure was defeated 57 to 43 on Tuesday night, in large part thanks to a full-fledged freakout by the fossil fuel industry, which, with $40 million, outspent Prop 112 proponents by at least 40 to 1.

“I guess the oil and gas industry is just another example of money buying elections.”

“This is much farther than we’ve gotten before, and we’re no longer going to accept this industry bullying us,” Nelson told me last night, celebrating the fact that Prop 112 even made it on the ballot. “We had a pretty good shot, but they definitely had way more resources than we did. I guess the oil and gas industry is just another example of money buying elections.”

:{

}:

Environmental initiatives on the ballot elsewhere in the country, vehemently opposed by industry groups, also flopped. A ballot initiative in Washington state to levy a $15 per ton carbon fee on polluters and invest the revenue in job creation, green infrastructure, and more was defeated 56 to 44 thanks to over $30 million from the oil and gas industry. 

:{

}:

In Arizona, electric utilities spent $31 million against Prop 127, which would have upped the state’s renewable portfolio standard, requiring the power sector to generate at least half its power from renewables by 2030. The proposition was largely bankrolled by liberal donor Tom Steyer via NextGen America, which poured $24 million in support, but it failed resoundingly, garnering just 30 percent of the vote....[more]

tUESDAY WASN’T AN unambiguous win for the industry, though — even in Colorado. Amendment 74 — polling high before the election and far better than Prop 112 — would have allowed property owners to sue local governments and the state for any infringement on their profits, but fell short of the 55 percent of votes needed to be grafted into Colorado’s constitution. The campaign for Amendment 74 was small compared to the fight against Prop 112 but still sizable, with $11.2 million raised by backers — about $10 million from oil and gas — and $6.3 by opponents under the banner Save Our Neighborhoods.

Still, one clear takeaway from the midterms ballot initiatives is that fossil fuel money can buy elections.Apparently, $100 million can buy four of them. “They’re putting up big numbers,” said Edgar Franks, a Bellingham-based labor organizer who helped draft and campaign for I-1631 with the environmental justice group Front and Centered. “You can tell that where this is actually a threat to the way that they do business, because they know it’s going to work.”

While Washington Gov. Jay Inslee backed I-1631 — having failed to get his own carbon fee through the legislature this spring — his Colorado counterpart was on the opposite side of the fight in his state. Prop 112 failed amid opposition not just from the oil and gas industry, but also from now-outgoing Colorado governor and former oil industry geologist John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, along with governor-elect Jared Polis and his Republican opponent. The Colorado Democratic Party, however, supported it. Polis’s opposition was ironic, given that he himself had spearheaded the push for a 2,000-foot setback rule several years ago before eventually withdrawing it from the ballot.

Despite Polis’s opposition to Prop 112, Colorado Rising is cautiously optimistic about working with his administration, a position bolstered by the fact that Democrats managed to flip the state legislature last night. “Polis clearly understands that fracking is dangerous near communities,” said Micah Parkin, a board member of Colorado Rising and executive director of 350 Colorado. “He may not agree with us on 2,500 feet, but he clearly gets that it doesn’t belong near our children’s schools and homes and water sources.”

The bar for improving Hickenlooper’s record on extraction has been set pretty low. The outgoing governor had threatened to call a special lame duck session of the state legislature in the event of Prop 112’s passage.“ It’s incredibly undemocratic,” said Parkin in advance of the vote. “The very idea that he would think it’s OK to turn around and ignore the will of the people, when thousands of his own constituents have worked so hard.”

The statement wasn’t unprecedented for Hickenlooper. In 2013, he openly threatened to sue any city that banned fracking within its borders and in fact, did sue Longmont and Fort Collins after they implemented restrictions on fracking. The state’s suit also undermined the legal standing of three other bans and moratoria. “Topics like these,” Nelson told me, “are the ones that enable the true colors of our representatives to come out. It just shows that he’s never been on the side of the people, he’s been on the side of industry.”

Predictably, then, the fight over Proposition 112 got ugly. Oil and gas interests painted the measure as an attempt to ban fracking in the state, though it in fact only added on to policies that already exist, which require a 500-foot setback from homes and 1,000-foot setback from schools.In collecting signatures this summer to get Prop 112 on the ballot, canvassers were followed and surrounded by paid protesters. “It would be between two and four of us who would plan out where to collect signatures,” Nelson said. “We would get there and 15 or 20 minutes later, these kids would show up with their signs. Unless they were following us, how would they know where we were?” She suspects at least some of them were University of Colorado students and had awkward encounters with them around town after encountering them while petitioning.

A political consultant hired by Colorado Rising this summer to help collect signatures also walked out of the state with 15,000 signatures, which were only retrieved after the group filed a lawsuit to have them returned.

The industry also publicly — and knowingly — overstated the impact of the measure. As Denver’s 9News found from a leaked report that industry groups had seen a report from the consultancy RS Energy stating that their losses would be far less than what they projected out over airwaves. The industry-friendly state regulator, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, had instead claimed in July that some 80 percent of non-federal land in Colorado — the only land covered by Prop 112 — would be off-limits to drilling. Yet the RS Energy report shows that companies would maintain access to 61 percent of the state’s oil and gas reserves. That’s partially because although companies would be barred from drilling within setback zones, horizontal drilling techniques — where the well mouth is within permitted drilling areas — could still access minerals under off-limits areas from up to a mile away.

“People have tried so many different ways to protect themselves over the years, and this was the last recourse.”

While it would have been the country’s most ambitious regulatory check on the fossil fuel industry, Parkin and Nelson both emphasized that Prop 112 was a kind of method of last resort. Those looking to place more regulations on the oil and gas industry had tried to get bills passed through the legislature and appealed to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission — all to no avail. “People have tried so many different ways to protect themselves over the years,” Parkin said, “and this was the last recourse.”

A supporter of Initiative 1631 holds a sign referencing the Nisqually Indian Tribe, Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2018, during a rally supporting I-1631, a November ballot measure in Washington state that would charge a fee on carbon emissions from fossil fuels. The rally was organized by tribal and environmental leaders, and took place near the offices of the Western States Petroleum Associationin Lacey, Wash. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

IT WAS A similar story in Washington, where the legislature failed earlier this year to get a somewhat similar carbon tax measure through the legislature, falling short by “one or two votes.” A 2016 ballot initiative had failed to — by a margin of 20 percent — after drawing fire from the same groups now pushing for I-1631 over its lack of both investment in green projects and attention to the demands of climate and environmental justice groups. The campaign this time around was comparatively massive, drawing in a huge coalition of labor groups, indigenous communities, climate nonprofits, and more.

The biggest limiting factor to commonsense climate policies like Prop 112 and I-1631 isn’t either old school climate denial or bad design, but the sheer force of the fossil fuel industry’s seemingly endless capacity to pour money into elections. While theoretically supportive of carbon pricing and some vague sense of climate action, fossil fuel interests this cycle showed their cards: If it poses a threat to their profits, it’s going down. Fightbacks like the one posed to Amendment 74 are possible. Yet with Democrats taking the House — with several climate hawks now in their ranks — any push on climate there will have to reckon with the colossal funding might of the industry, and the kind of opposition Prop 112 faced from members of their own party sponsored by them.

On the heels of the latest IPCC report — which makes the need to decarbonize every sector of the economy painfully clear — there isn’t really an alternative to going toe to toe with those companies, no matter how much of a David and Goliath fight it might be.

“This isn’t over for me, personally.  We have had a warning,” Nelson said, referencing that report, “that we either end our dependence on fossil fuels or things are going to get extremely rough for mankind. For me, it shows that it’s just about greed and money for this industry.”

new 519

March For Our Lives, the gun violence prevention movement, called for an end to #GenerationLockdown following the latest school shooting.

Two suspects opened fire at the Denver-area STEM School Highlands Ranch Tuesday. Kendrick Castillo, 18, died. He was just days away from graduation. Eight others were injured.

It was the fourth school shooting in Colorado since the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999, the Denver Post reported.

March For Our Lives, which was formed in the wake of the Parkland, Florida mass shooting last year, demanded an end to such violent acts. The group said people must not to “grow numb” to the tragedies and urged political leadership tackle the gun violence epidemic.

The group made the calls in a Twitter thread that included video from local Denver7 News of young STEM students boarding a bus outside the school....

==

AN 419

Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed a controversial new gun control bill into law on Friday. You might first remember Polis because the recently elected governor is both the first openly gay governor and first Jewish governor in the state. But this new measure, sometimes known as a “red flag” law, didn’t come easily, and in fact, came after about two months of legislative hearings and debates.

We’ll break it down in more detail below, but the basic idea is that this law, effective Jan. 1, 2020, will allow law enforcement, family members, and roommates to appeal for an individual’s firearms to temporarily be removed, for their own protection and general public safety. CNN reports that fourteen other states (plus D.C.) have passed similar legislation.

It’s probably no surprise that Republicans opposed the bill from the start, on the grounds that they interpret it as a threat to the Second Amendment. Some opponents of the bill worry, for example, that false accusations will lead to their guns being taken away.

On the other hand, however, some progressives also have mixed feelings about the “Extreme Risk Protection Order” take. Why? Statistics show that people with mental illnesses are way more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence.

It’s also important to point out that media coverage and cultural dialogue can vary widely depending on the race or ethnicity of the shooter in question. For example, while a person of color may quickly be described as a terrorist, a white shooter may be described as mentally ill.

Polis, however, isn’t under the impression this law will prevent every shooting. He sees it as a stepping stone in the right direction.

“This law will not prevent every shooting, but it can be used in a targeted way to make sure that those who are suffering from a mental health crisis are able to temporarily have a court order in place that helps make sure they don’t harm themselves or others,” Polis said on Friday, as first reported by The Denver Post. “Today we may be saving the life of your nephew, your niece, your grandchild.”

Now for some background specific to Colorado. Two years ago, a Douglas County sheriff’s deputy was killed by a gunman who was, as reported by The Denver Post, “in the middle of a mental health crisis.” This situation in part inspired the bill, which was called the “Deputy Zackari Parrish III Violence Protection Act.”

Today, roughly half of the counties in the state are calling themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries.” (Yes, really.) As reported by CNN, sheriffs across the state have declared that they’d rather go to jail than enforce this new legislation. Their argument is they believe it is unconstitutional.

So how does this law function in practice? Family members, as well as law enforcement officials, will have the chance to request a protection order for a person’s firearms to be confiscated. The idea is that if the individual in question is a risk to other people or themselves, a judge can grant this order temporarily, to alleviate risk in the short-term. This temporary protection order could last about two weeks, at which point a judge would decide at a hearing if the protection order should be extended for up to one year.

During this process, the responsibility is basically on the gun-owner to prove they are not a risk.

Again, a lot of Republicans feel that this is an attempt to steal people’s Second Amendment rights. It’s somewhat surprising that this moved along in Colorado; a similar bill was rejected last year in the Senate, for example. The difference here is likely that Democrats have taken control back in the state Senate, and in spite of the controversy, pushed the measure along to Polis.

See also: Why midterms really do matter!!

On a serious note, if you (or someone you know) may be struggling with mental health issues, or just wants some support, please don’t hesitate to reach out to a trusted person and/or mental health professional. Here’s a roundup of free resources you can access right from your home or computer.

==

https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/this-governor-takes-a-bold-step-in-a-plan-to-essentially-end-the-undemocratic-electoral-college/

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15012019/colorado-oil-gas-drilling-supreme-court-ruling-climate-change-public-health

gov polis goes for law change

==

https://www.ecowatch.com/colorado-electric-school-buses-air-2622696429.html

Why Aren't School Buses Electric? These Coloradans Are Sick of Diesel

By Corey Binns

Before her two kids returned to school at the end of last summer, Lorena Osorio stood before the Westminster, Colorado, school board and gave heartfelt testimony about raising her asthmatic son, now a student at the local high school. "My son was only three years old when he first suffered from asthma," she said. Like most kids, he rode a diesel school bus. Some afternoons he arrived home struggling to breathe.

Osorio and her family live just north of Denver, where children are at particularly high risk for respiratory illnesses. Air quality there ranks among the worst in the nation, according to an American Lung Association report.

That evening at the school board meeting, Osorio stood alongside a Spanish translator working with Protégete, the Latino outreach arm of the environmental nonprofit Conservation Colorado. The group runs a Clean Buses for Healthy Niños campaign, an initiative of the League of Conservation Voters, which advocates across the country for states to trade in their diesel school buses for electric ones, particularly in communities of color and low-income areas, which suffer disproportionately from air pollution.

In Colorado, more than 4,000 yellow school buses run on diesel. They carry 42 percent of the state's school kids and spew out nearly 50,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year. Each electric school bus can save districts nearly $2,000 a year in fuel and $4,400 a year in maintenance costs, according to a report by the Colorado Public Interest Research Group (CoPIRG) Foundation, Frontier Group and Environment Colorado.

Colorado school districts may now apply for state funding for a new fleet of electric buses via the Volkswagen diesel emissions cheating scandal settlement, as Osorio explained. That settlement resulted in more than $4 billion being split among 44 states plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico for use in environmental mitigation and to promote adoption of zero-emissions technology. "It is our responsibility to clean up our contaminated air," Osorio told the board members.

Thanks in part to the efforts of Conservation Colorado, CoPIRG, the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project and NRDC, Colorado has earmarked $18 million of its settlement funds to replace about 450 trucks, school buses, shuttle buses and other vehicles with alternative-fuel or electric vehicles. Another portion of the funds will pay for charging stations, a necessary part of the electric vehicle infrastructure.

Advocates say that improvements in our transportation sector—one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gases across the nation—are key to addressing both our changing climate and public health challenges. CoPIRG director Danny Katz noted that Denver puts out ozone alerts to urge residents to stay indoors on bad days, something he calls incongruous with the state's reputation as a destination for nature lovers. "Air pollutionis literally impacting our ability to live an active outdoor lifestyle that is central to our quality of life here," he said. "This is especially bad for the 343,000 Coloradans with asthma, but ultimately this impacts everyone."

Still, the momentum for change has been slow to build. For example, in Westminster, the school board has so far deemed the program impractical for its district's use. "Given [our] size—9,500 students—and the fact that we replace, at most, one vehicle a year, the electric bus program does not make sense for the district," said its chief communications officer, Steve Saunders. And while nearby Denver Public Schools has been in conversation about alternative fuels and electric school buses and their benefits, the district has made no purchase plans. But on the northern side of the Denver metro area, Adams County School District 12—which serves about 39,000 students across five municipalities—has applied for grants for eight buses.

Meanwhile, environmental advocates are eagerly awaiting leadership on the issue by the state's incoming governor, Jared Polis, who was endorsed by Conservation Colorado for his record on fighting for clean air and climate action. They are also waiting for the technology itself. Blue Bird—North America's top school bus manufacturer—delivered its first electric buses to districts in Ontario and California only this past September. (In December 2016, the corporation received $4.4 million from the U.S. Department of Energy for research and the development of a zero-emissions electric school bus using vehicle-to-grid technology by 2019.)

Despite the modest pace of the transition, however, analysts see promise: Bloomberg New Energy Finance(BNEF) estimates that in the second half of the 2020s, electric buses will take off even faster than electric vehicles, filling 84 percent of the market by 2030. As Colin McKerracher, lead analyst on advanced transportation for BNEF, noted in May, "Developments over the last 12 months, such as manufacturers' plans for model roll-outs and new regulations on urban pollution, have bolstered our bullish view of the prospects for EVs."

Those prospects could be further improved if fleet managers and school districts partner up with electric utilities. As NRDC senior attorney Max Baumhefner explained, utilities are increasingly looking to use the big batteries in electric school buses to lower the cost of managing a grid with large amounts of variable electricity generation like wind and solar. "Putting kids in zero-emission buses is motivation enough," he noted, "but when those buses are stationary (which is most of the day and all night), they can be charged when wind or solar generation is abundant, and [school districts] can get paid to put that electricity back onto the grid when it is most needed."

Grassroots groups are poised to play a big role in electric bus adoption in Colorado. During the past two years, Protégete has worked hard to bring attention to the issue in the Latino community in Denver. Juan Pérez Sáez, one of the group's community organizers, led a team in collecting comments from Latino residents and bringing people to the state's public hearings. Some described how high housing prices forced them to live, work and play in the city's industrial outskirts, next to highways and near factories and refineries, where dirty air is a daily fact of life and asthma rates are high.

In fact, as Pérez Sáez noted, asthma is a leading cause across the U.S. for absenteeism in schools. "It means children are not having the opportunity to be educated in an environment that is safe for them," he said, "and that should be a priority for everyone."

In July, Pérez Sáez traveled with fellow community members and environmental justice leaders from Nevada, Arizona and Colorado to the Rally for Clean Air in Santa Fe, New Mexico, a state that has seen increasing air pollution yet little progress on electric school buses or other climate action under the outgoing Republican governor, Susana Martinez. Under Martinez, the New Mexico Environment Department has argued that electric buses wouldn't be a cost-effective use of its VW settlement funds, despite the fact that 1 out of every 11 of the state's children has asthma.

The rally took place as Martinez and other state lawmakers were gathering for an annual meeting of the National Governors Association. Protégete joined forces with the League of Conservation Voters, Chispaactivists, Moms Clean Air Force, Juntos and other organizations to demand justice for communities disproportionately affected by asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Pérez Sáez marched alongside a crowd of parents and students, with some kids wearing surgical masks and dressed in yellow school bus costumes.

We should change the narrative of the environmental movement, Pérez Sáez said. "If you want to be an environmentalist, you can be an environmentalist. You don't need to have the money to buy your own electric car, but we can all advocate to get public transit, to get electric zero-emission school buses. And that will impact everyone at the same level."

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

==

attacked by berman: to be fair, uses nice fotos)

=

The House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to cut funding from key climate protection rules and rejected an attempt to save regional offices of the Environmental Protection Agency from being closed.

But lawmakers voted against an amendment to cut $1.9 billion from the EPA's budget, which would have dealt a devastating blow to the beleaguered agency.

Offered by Rep. Ralph Norman, a Republican from South Carolina, the amendment's cuts would have come close to the 31 percent reduction sought by President Donald Trump. The House bill does cut more than $530 million from the agency's $8 billion budget, slashing it to less than the agency was spending in 2006.

The votes came as lawmakers worked their way through a broad spending package for the 2018 fiscal year, which begins in October. Final passage by the House will likely come Thursday, but any differences with a Senate version will need to be reconciled.

The bill contained hundreds of amendments, many of them "riders" of the kind attached to appropriations bills to score policy points. Dozens of these proposals have drawn criticism from environmental groups.

Hewing closely to party lines, Republicans backed two amendments sponsored by Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.). One would prevent funds from being used to enforce an Obama-era rule that limits methane pollution from new oil and gas facilities. The other effectively prohibits the EPA from factoring in future damages from climate change—a calculation known as the social cost of carbon—in weighing the costs and benefits of its rules.

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to weaken the social cost of carbon requirements, and the administration has also attempted to stall or block rules limiting methane emissions. Republican support on the must-pass appropriations package backs up the administration, and, at least for the coming fiscal year, complicates any efforts by green advocacy groups to challenge the administration's rollbacks.

Lawmakers on Wednesday also voted down an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis, (D-Colo.), that sought to block the administration from closing or consolidating any of the regional offices of EPA.

Debate began on the package last week, but House leadership delayed some votes until this week so that some lawmakers could cope with the hurricane emergencies in their home districts.

Last week, during debate over these riders, lawmakers expressed their ongoing frustration that policy-related amendments are being tucked into must-pass spending legislation.

"These riders are best done in the policy committee, not on the appropriations bill," said Rep. Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, saying that Congress ought to hear from scientists and public health experts as well as the fossil fuel industry when making decisions. "I support science and I believe we should not abandon science while trying to tackle climate change."

==

==

http://ecowatch.com/2014/08/04/polis-pulls-anti-fracking-initiatives-colorado-ballot/

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who was prepared to turn in more than 200,000 signatures today in support of two ballot measures that sought to provide far greater local control of Colorado’s fracking industry, instead announced at a press conference Monday that he pulled the controversial initiatives from Colorado’s November ballot.

The initiatives would have forced fracking wells to be 2,000 feet from schools, hospitals and other community facilities, and established an environmental bill of rights allowing local governments precedence when laws conflict with the state. In exchange for pulling the controversial ballot measures, a commission will be set up to analyze whatever problems might exist.

“We are disappointed that Colorado’s environmental rights ballot initiative that would have allowed local governments to protect their citizens from the potential harms of oil and gas drilling has been withdrawn,” said Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability Project director Bruce Baizel.

“Colorado’s oil and gas oversight favors the oil and gas industry’s interests before the public interest. That’s why hundreds of thousands of Coloradoans backed ballot initiatives to fundamentally change oil and gas regulation for the better this November.”

The fracking commission announced today by Governor Hickenlooper and Representative Polis provides a possibility that Colorado’s community and environment may yet be protected from the environmental and health threats associated with oil and gas development. Impacted communities must have a real seat at the table, and must be allowed to determine that in some cases no fracking may be the right choice.”

According to Colorado’s KDVR News, Polis negotiated with Hickenlooper and “reached an agreement over the weekend to stand down on the initiatives and allow a broader stakeholder process to take place.”

“This hollow compromise may remove fracking from the state ballot this November, but it doesn’t solve any problems,” said Sam Schabacker, western region director with Food & Water Watch. “It creates an unelected task force and guarantees that concern among voters about fracking will continue to escalate, and that fracking will continue to be a significant statewide issue our officials must address.”

According to The Hill, the measures created a rift among Colorado Democrats in recent months and threatened to hurt Sen. Mark Udall and Gov. John Hickenlooper in their reelection bids. 

You Might Also Like

Fracking Waste Puts Americans’ Drinking Water at Risk

How Fracking Changed the World

Fracking Makes California’s Drought Worse

==

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) was never much involved in energy issues…until a fracking well obstructed the view from one of his vacation homes. In a classic case of NIMBY (Not-in-My-Backyard) activism, Rep. Polis sprang into action, throwing his personal fortune (estimated to be $68 million) and his political influence behind ballot measures aimed at curbing or eliminating fracking. Since he joined Congress in 2008, he’s inspired intense criticism—Gawker[snarky inside baseball SV? recall Tyrone]   even ran an article in 2009, “Jared Polis: To Know Him Is To Loathe Him,” noting the Congressman has a “peculiar habit of creating enemies.” Even the notably left-leaning Atlantic got in on the criticism, with one of its writers publishing a blog originally titled “Go to Hell, Jared Polis.” Now that Polis has turned his attention to deterring energy development, it’s only a matter of time before more Coloradans join the “go to hell” chorus.

==

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) thinks local communities should be able to decide how fracking is regulated in their areas, and whether it’s allowed at all. He’s among the backers of some initiatives proposed for the November ballot that could increase local control over oil and gas drilling.

And the chair of the Colorado Republican Committee, Ryan Call, says that makes Polis a terrorist. Here’s a screen grab thatColoradoPols.com took of a Twitter exchangebefore Call deleted the offensive tweet:

ColoradoPols.com

Another Republican, state Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, picked up the theme, saying, “Polis’ jihad against responsible energy development is reckless.”

The Boulder *Daily Camera* reports that Call apologized for using the T word:

“It’s a fact that Congressman Jared Polis’ proposed regulations will put thousands of Colorado jobs and our state’s economic future at risk,” [Call] said. “While I passionately believe that we must protect these jobs and energy development in our state, I understand that my comment has distracted from this important conversation.” …

On Friday, Polis said his fight for local control over drilling may have to be settled in November’s election, in which his seat also will be on the ballot.

“Fundamentally, what my constituents feel needs to occur is that communities need to have a role in the siting of fracking activities in their areas,” he said. “Currently, that debate is co-opted by the state, which allows fracking to occur anywhere and everywhere.”

What’s really more terrorizing – run-of-the-mill democracy, or energy companies pumping poisons into the ground and the air for short-term financial gain with limited government oversight?

Source

er Colorado GOP chairman Ryan Call likened U.S. Rep. Jared Polis to a "terrorist" Friday for his efforts to increase local control over oil and gas drilling, the Boulder Democrat dismissed the remark as "ridiculous" and counter-productive.

About 2 p.m. Friday, Call tweeted, "We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists," in response to another Twitter user's question about Polis. The tweet has since been deleted, but **ColoradoPols.com captured a screenshot**.

"Of course it's ridiculous that over differences of opinion on an important issue, people are calling each other names," Polis said. "There's plenty of arguments on all sides. We want to have a strong energy sector in Colorado, but we also want to protect homeowners, and we need to find a balance between the two."

Call, in a statement Friday afternoon, apologized for the tweet.

"It's a fact that Congressman Jared Polis' proposed regulations will put thousands of Colorado jobs and our state's economic future at risk," he said. "While I passionately believe that we must protect these jobs and energy development in our state, I understand that my comment has distracted from this important conversation.

"I apologize for that, and I sincerely apologize to Congressman Polis."

Polis has been vocally opposed to oil and gas activity in densely populated neighborhoods, and has fought Sundance Energy over the company drilling near a home he owns in Weld County. In December, state officials fined Sundance $26,000 and ordered them to relocate two wells near the congressman's home.

On Friday, Polis said his fight for local control over drilling may have to be settled in November's election, in which his seat also will be on the ballot.

"Fundamentally, what my constituents feel needs to occur is that communities need to have a role in the siting of fracking activities in their areas," he said. "Currently, that debate is co-opted by the state, which allows fracking to occur anywhere and everywhere.

"We realize there are major economic interests at stake, but it's an issue the Colorado voters are demanding to be addressed, either by the legislation or at the ballot box."

Call's tweet, Polis added, is "distracting from finding a solution."

Also on Friday, Rep. Jenny Sonnenberg told The Denver Post that "Polis' jihad against responsible energy development is reckless."

"To throw our words like 'terrorist' or 'jihad,'" Polis said, "is completely inappropriate in this context."

Contact Camera Staff Writer Alex Burness