It’s political blackmail, pure and simple.

There is no real need for the coming special session of the state legislature, but Michael Fields and his team at Advance Colorado have successfully blackmailed the governor, who may not mind so much, and Democrats in the state legislature, many of whom definitely do mind, to agree to a special session to once again reduce property taxes.

Advance Colorado, the advocacy group that claims to oppose “radical” — meaning liberal — Colorado policies, and Colorado Concern, a conservative nonprofit that represents state business interests, are sponsoring two property tax ballot measures that are generally described as either “reckless” or “devastating” or — maybe this is just me — something very close to extortion.

And if the state legislature passes a new property tax bill — as it almost certainly will — Fields has promised to withdraw the initiatives, which are sufficiently radical and would be sufficiently dangerous that everyone, — by which I mean virtually everyone, suddenly felt the absolute need to give in to Fields.

The betting has been that neither measure would pass. The early polling seemed to suggest that neither would pass. But suddenly, in just the past few days, those who seemed ready to gamble got a collective case of cold feet. By cold, I mean ice-age cold. Pre-global-warming cold.

The stakes apparently were just too high. And the final bet by Jared Polis and those in the state legislature was that Fields et al were not bluffing.

State budget director Mark Ferrandino said if the two proposals passed — Initiative 50, which would place a strict cap on property tax growth, and Initiative 108, which would cut property tax revenue by an estimated $2.4 billion — they would cause a recession-equivalent budget crisis.

And so with just weeks to go before the two proposals would be certified for the November ballot, a wide-ranging group of Coloradans, from labor groups like the Colorado Teachers Association to school districts and university officials to conservative groups like Club 20, came together to call for a special session to ward off a “very significant and real threat to all communities in Colorado.”

Want early access to
Mike’s columns?

Subscribe to get an
exclusive first look at
his columns twice a week.

SUBSCRIBE

These are groups that rarely agree on anything, but they did agree there was more than a little justifiable panic in the air.

The mayors of Colorado’s three largest cities — one mayor a Democrat, one a Republican and one Unaffiliated  — also wrote a letter citing the desperate need for a special session.

”If passed, these two initiative will drastically defund K-12 schools statewide, deplete public safety resources and demand crippling cuts to local fire districts and special districts,” wrote Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D), Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman (R) and Colorado Springs Mayor Yemi Mobolade (U). “These are very real impacts that will negatively impact every resident’s quality of life. We are depending on our legislature to ensure this does not happen.”

We could also expect cuts in transportation funding, in higher education and in Medicaid.

Yeah, dangerous. And radical.

As Polis put it, “whatever the level of risk is — whether it’s a 50-50 chance it passes or a 30% chance it passes” — the risk is too high.

And so Polis has decreed that the legislature will meet, starting Aug. 26, to hammer out what has apparently already been agreed to. It takes at least three days to get a bill passed and ready for the governor to sign, and the hope — although maybe not the reality — is that’s what will happen. If past is prologue, and it often is, sometimes these special sessions can go off the rails.

It’s an election year, meaning anything is possible. And it’s not just Republicans who might have an interest in making the session more interesting than Polis would like. Several progressive Democrats who lost in primary races to candidates backed by the party establishment would be back on the floor and might have something to say.

Which doesn’t mean that Polis is entirely unhappy. You may recall that just last May, at the end of the regular legislative session, they passed a bill, one that Polis signed, that reduced property taxes by somewhat more than $1 billion. You may also recall that Polis, who hasn’t seen a state tax rate he doesn’t want to lower, wanted a bigger cut.

And of course, in a special session called last year, the legislature passed emergency aid for homeowners and renters. And there’s the bill passed in the 2023 session. I think you can spot a trend.

There was the thought — or at least the hope — that the bill in the last regular session had sufficiently addressed, at least for a while, what has been a crisis in property tax hikes, fueled by the runaway rise in housing prices. Although Colorado property tax rates are relatively low compared to most states, that didn’t prevent untenable growth in costs for many homeowners. 

A new proposal would cut property taxes by $255 million in addition to the cuts already passed. And if the legislature sends a similar proposal to Polis to sign, Fields said that not only would he pull both measures from the ballot, but that the bill could provide  a “permanent solution to Colorado’s property tax crisis.” 

When The Sun asked Polis, as reported in The Unaffiliated newsletter, about the outside groups using the ballot to force the legislature’s hand, he said, “This is another example of an issue where, of course, it’s the right of people who petition and go to the people to decide things, but if the legislature can work it out, and we can avoid that and provide more stability for the states, that’s a good thing.”

Which, I believe, is Polis-speak for, this has worked out just the way I wanted it to.

He also said in the interview that he didn’t think this meant the issue was solved “forever,” but that he hoped the issue might be resolved for maybe the next 10 years.

Which brings us back to the issue of blackmail.

You know how it is with blackmailers. If they get away with it once, they can be counted on to come back again. And again. And again.

They may say that they won’t. They may promise with a blood oath that they won’t. But, here’s the catch: Why should anyone believe a blackmailer?

Look, it might well be that Advance Colorado or Colorado Concern won’t bring up another initiative. But who’s to say that some other group won’t bring up something even more radical and more dangerous and find someone else with big money to back it?

The risk is there. But in this case, neither Polis nor the legislature had any real choice but to pay up. 

Mike Littwin has been a columnist for too many years to count. He has covered Dr. J, four presidential inaugurations, six national conventions and countless brain-numbing speeches in the New Hampshire and Iowa snow. Sign up for Mike’s newsletter.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.

Colorado is ready for the return of the Big Lie. It never really went away, after all. It was just sort of muted after more than 60 courts across the country ruled unequivocally that the outcome of the 2020 presidential election was fair and accurate, and it was all a giant con.

But it’s an election year and potential losers are hedging their bets, so the Big Lie is making a comeback tour.

Addressing it is a little like playing whack-a-mole — you have to keep knocking back the weirdness wherever it pops up. But here in Colorado we have what it takes to bring the hammer down.

If you don’t believe it, just ask Tina Peters, former Mesa County clerk who last week was convicted of four felonies and three misdemeanors in connection with her efforts to manufacture evidence in support of the Big Liar.

The message is clear: we don’t mess around when it comes to election fraud. The Peters case is a high-profile example of how the state holds elections officials accountable to protect the integrity of the process. 

So, when Trump went off on Truth Social last week, saying all-mail voting was brought about by Gov. Jared Polis and has made Colorado “a POLITICAL CESSPOOL where, even if you were leading, it would make no difference!”, it unleashed a storm of righteous outrage.

Kyle Clark, the 9News anchor, promptly dissected Trump’s rantings, noting that mail-in voting was instituted as a result of a bipartisan effort dating to years before Polis was elected governor and it was “implemented by a Republican secretary of state.” 

Clark also noted that the Heritage Foundation, hardly a leftie bunch, had uncovered only 15 cases of voter fraud in the 10 years since mail-in voting began in Colorado. 

“The two most prominent cases were a former GOP chair and a man suspected of killing his wife who admitted casting her ballot for Trump,” he said.

Both were apprehended and prosecuted.

Catching cheaters is one strategy for ensuring free and fair elections in Colorado, but there are several others. 

Secretary of State Jena Griswold said protecting elections involves a galaxy of programs to ensure the integrity of the process. They include using paper ballots because they “can’t be hacked,” maintaining the security surrounding vote-counting equipment, having a strict chain of custody of all ballots and equipment, doing background checks on election workers, launching a cyber command center to counter any potential threats to systems, and assembling bipartisan teams to test equipment and oversee voting audits.

Still, she knows there always will be skeptics and doubters.

With all the disinformation that has been circulating about mail ballots since 2016, “it has shaken some people’s confidence,” she said. “We may not be able to convince everybody, but we want to make sure there’s enough good information out there.”

It seems to be working. Ninety percent of voters use mail-in ballots, she said.

But the hostile minority who have embraced the disinformation circulating from foreign adversaries and sore losers in this country can wreak real havoc. 

The Big Lie has incited a torrent of violent threats against elections officials and poll workers in Colorado. 

In the past year, Griswold alone has received more than 900 threats over bogus election fraud accusations. For this and other reasons, the state has seen a 38% turnover rate in county clerks since 2020.

The secretary of state’s office has created a $5 million fund for security personnel to protect county officials from people trying to disrupt elections and to apprehend those who attempt to harm people or the process. 

It’s a crime in Colorado to threaten election workers. It’s also against the law to carry firearms openly at polling places or where ballots are being processed. 

“It can get really scary,” Griswold said. “No person should have to face death threats for doing their jobs.”

The system that Trump flagrantly, deceptively mischaracterizes as a “CESSPOOL” is one of the most respected elections operations in the country, dubbed “the gold standard” by the League of Women Voters.

Every registered voter is checked for eligibility, Griswold said, and every signature on every ballot is checked to make sure only one ballot is cast per registered voter. The state is also part of an interstate compact that compares ballots to make sure no one is voting more than once.

“If we find any indication of double-voting, it’s referred for prosecution,” she said, “but it’s extremely rare.”

Nobody takes that for granted, though. It requires constant vigilance. 

The pressure is intense on every county clerk and every election worker to ensure each voter is eligible and every vote is counted. Protecting elections requires the willingness to hold every scofflaw, every cheat, every bad actor accountable.

Which brings us back to Tina Peters, the most recent example that the system is working.

Her sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 3. We could see her in an orange jumpsuit by Election Day 2024.

Diane Carman is a Denver communications consultant.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.

The foundation of the laws, treaties, acts and policies that govern the Colorado River is the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Over the past 100 hundred years, dozens of additional agreements and decisions have been layered on top, providing for the management framework we know today. 

As we look to the future, and as individuals who represent Tribal and environmental interests in the Colorado River Basin, we believe it is time to return to — and reimagine — one of the primary stated purposes of the 1922 Compact: to provide for the equitable use of water.

For me, Lorelei, it’s personal. Rooted in the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and raised on the Reservation in southwestern Colorado, my life has been deeply intertwined with water. 

We lived in one of the first adobe houses on the Reservation and did not have running water. We relied in part on groundwater, but the well often dried up. So, we hauled water once a week and my grandmother boiled ditch water for drinking water as needed. 

Water was a scarce resource, and we often had to choose between using water for drinking, taking showers or flushing the toilet. This scarcity is still a reality for many Native Americans today across the country.

I grew up knowing that water is a living, sacred being. Our Ute (Nuuchiu) culture centers around water, and we offer prayers for and with it. Water is the heart of our ceremonies. We were taught early on to take and use only what is needed. Above all else, we must care for the spirit of the water.

When I was first elected to the Southern Ute Tribal Council in 2015, I was asked to participate in the Ten Tribes Partnership, or TTP, which is a coalition of the 10 Tribes along the Colorado River focused on securing and using tribal water. After one year, I was asked to chair TTP.

I drew on my personal and spiritual connection to water and started learning about the complex legal and technical issues related to managing water in the American West. I was stunned to learn that Tribes have historically delegated to have little to no role in managing Western water, and that tribal needs and interests are often marginalized.

In recent years, I have had the opportunity to work alongside many people from diverse walks of life to begin addressing these inequities: lack of inclusion in decision-making; lack of access to clean water; and lack of capacity to manage, develop and use water. 

I became a founding member of the Water and Tribes Initiative, or WTI, for the Colorado River Basin; was the first Native American appointed to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Colorado Chapter of The Nature Conservancy; co-founded the Indigenous Women’s Leadership Network, a program of WTI; and helped forge an historic agreement among the six tribes in the Upper Basin the Colorado River and the states of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico to allow Tribes to be more meaningfully involved in collaborative problem-solving (but not decision-making per se).

Like Tribes, environmental interests have mostly taken a backseat to the use of the Colorado River for municipal and agricultural purposes. Most adjustments to address cultural and ecological values have been treated as subservient to the allocative laws that largely service municipal and agricultural interests.

Returning to the primary purpose of the 1922 Compact, we believe that providing for the equitable use of water includes substantive and procedural elements. There’s a huge difference between how the Colorado River is managed for multiple values (substance) and how people who care about such issues determine what ought to happen (process). 

We are offering a process improvement. We believe it’s time to establish an ongoing, whole-basin roundtable that would embrace the entire transboundary watershed, address the major water issues facing the basin, and, importantly, provide an equitable process to engage all four sets of sovereigns (United States, Mexico, seven basin states and 30 Tribal nations), water users and stakeholders. 

The late University of Colorado law professor David Getches, an astute observer of Colorado River law, noted in 1997 that “the awkwardness and the intractability of most of the Colorado River’s problems reflect the absence of a venue to deal comprehensively with Colorado River basin issues.” He called for “the establishment of a new entity that recognizes and integrates the interests and people who are most affected by the outcome of decisions on major Colorado River issues.” 

Many other scholars and professionals have supported a whole-basin approach to complement, not duplicate, other forums for engagement and problem-solving in the basin. Establishing a whole-basin forum is also consistent with international best practices, as most transboundary river basins throughout the world have some type of river basin commission. 

A whole-basin forum would be a safe place to have difficult conversations, to exchange information, build trust and relationships, and to develop collaborative solutions. It should rely on the best available information, including Indigenous knowledge.

Addressing the historic inequities built into the fabric of governing the Colorado River requires innovative substantive tools as well as procedural reforms focused on engagement and problem-solving. We look forward to working with all of you to shape a more equitable, more sustainable future for the Colorado River.

Vice Chairman Lorelei Cloud lives on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation and is the first Native American appointed to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Colorado Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.

John Berggren lives in Boulder and is the Regional Policy Manager, Healthy Rivers for Western Resource Advocates.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.

It turns out, as expected, that the question of Tina Peters’ guilt was never really a question at all.

Even Peters herself, according to testimony, knew that once her election-security breach was uncovered, that she was, uh, well, totally screwed and likely headed to prison.

It took the Mesa County jury less than five hours to convict Peters, the former county clerk, on seven of 10 charges — including whatever charges would cover a harebrained scheme to allow a former professional surfer, using a fake ID, to gain access to voting machines whose hard drives he would copy and which, ultimately, would be made public.

It was refreshing to see that a jury, presented with the evidence, would come to a clear and unanimous conclusion. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t any questions remaining.

You can start with the most obvious one: How could a county clerk and recorder, whose job is to oversee elections, fall so deeply into the rabbit hole of election denial that she would risk everything — her job, her reputation, even her freedom — to try to illegally prove a lie?

You can just blame Peters for her role in the plot and the coverup that followed, which is what the jury did.

You can blame Donald Trump, whose fear of losing is so great that he had to invent a conspiracy to explain away any defeat. And we must include those Republican politicians who knew better but who enabled the Big Lie to grow virtually unchecked to the point that election denial became party dogma.

Want early access to
Mike’s columns?

Subscribe to get an
exclusive first look at
his columns twice a week.

SUBSCRIBE

You can blame the MyPillow Guy, who spent much of his fortune trying to con the world into thinking that the 2020 election actually was rigged and who, with help from his followers, turned Peters into a convert and an unlikely hero to his unhinged movement.

You can blame the culture of conspiracy that allows Trump, even today, to charge without any evidence that a crowd of 15,000 or so people who greeted Kamala Harris at a Michigan airport didn’t, uh, exist. That, in Trump’s words, Harris had “A.I.’d” a photo, despite the fact that, well, 15,000 actual people were there, including the press, to record the event in real time. 

Is it possible for anyone to be so credulous, even someone like Peters who apparently still thinks the 2020 election was rigged, to believe an accusation so utterly bizarre?

The future of the country may rest on the answer to that question.

Because that question leads inevitably to this: Is this a case where past is prologue, meaning we should fully expect another round of craziness following the November presidential election?

I’d like to think the Peters trial — it seems she may well be headed to prison when sentenced in October — was an object lesson and that election deniers, whether out of fear or just plain common sense, would see themselves sufficiently warned.

But I somehow doubt it.

Certainly Trump, who seems deeply shaken by how significantly the race has changed since Harris replaced Joe Biden on the ticket, is working the Big Lie, and so many smaller ones, at every turn.

Voting for Trump now, more than ever, means that you have to accept what has become his campaign philosophy — anything that hurts him or benefits the other side simply can’t be true. 

So if NPR counted 162 lies and distortions from his recent news conference, you must either believe Trump — sure, his January 6 rally drew a bigger crowd than Martin Luther King’s March on Washington — or you believe that NPR, and every other fact checker, has conspired to make him look like a liar.

You either believe all the photos from Harris’ airport appearance were faked or you believe Trump has special insights into the power of AI.

You either believe Trump’s rantings are the product of a stable genius, or you believe, as Never-Trumper Rick Wilson put it, that Trump is now auditioning for the lead role in “The Madness of King George.”

When Trump was in Aspen for a fundraiser over the weekend, he posted a social-media rant on mail-in voting in Colorado, blaming it on the “Radical Left Governor” Jared Polis, while also slamming the “Lunatic Left” in Colorado for pursuing the since-overturned Colorado Supreme Court ruling briefly keeping Trump off the ballot for his role in the January 6 insurrection.

Of course, mail-in voting in Colorado started in 2013, long before Polis was governor, and the case to keep Trump off the Colorado ballot was brought by a group of five Republicans. And there is no evidence, anywhere, that mail-in voting is somehow unsafe.

The Colorado legislature, to its credit, did respond to the Mesa County breach by passing a law making it specifically illegal to photograph voting machines or to allow unauthorized access to them.

But Peters isn’t the only election denier to have gained a position of some power. According to a report in Rolling Stone, at least 70 pro-Trump election deniers are working as county election officials in swing states. 

And in several states, most notably in Georgia, they’ve changed the rules to make it easier for local officials to delay, or possibly even reject, election certification. As you might remember, Trump and others have been indicted in Georgia for trying to overturn the election. And there was a major breach in election security there — not unlike the breach in Mesa County — in Cobb County.

If Trump loses again, he’d almost certainly claim he was robbed, and chaos would inevitably follow. 

And Tina Peters? You’d like to think she’d be a distant memory by then. But the Big Lie that she still believes, despite everything, isn’t going anywhere. 

Mike Littwin has been a columnist for too many years to count. He has covered Dr. J, four presidential inaugurations, six national conventions and countless brain-numbing speeches in the New Hampshire and Iowa snow. Sign up for Mike’s newsletter.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.

Throughout Colorado, the cost of living, particularly housing, has exploded, and this is true across the income spectrum for low, to moderate, to high incomes, and touches every corner of the state, from urban, to rural, to rural resort.  

This cost explosion is a crisis in our communities, and is driven by a lack of supply across every price point and building type. The economics of housing development leave us with a steady, albeit constrained, stream of market rate and luxury products, with little development oriented toward households of low and moderate means. In many communities, this dynamic results in a significant number of households who earn too much to qualify for affordable housing, but not nearly enough to afford market rate housing.  

Thankfully, there is a new and parallel way forward. In addition to our steadfast commitment to serving low-income Coloradans, the state legislature has created new pathways and resources, such as House Bill 1271, which created the Department of Local Affairs Innovative Affordable Housing Strategies program, establishing moderate income housing developments as an eligible use. Following significant demand for the program the legislature expanded their investment via House Bill 1304, State Grants Investments Local Affordable Housing, utilizing American Rescue Plan Act funding.

Concurrently, the legislature invested $25 million to expand the Middle Income Access Program, administered by the Colorado Housing Finance Authority via Senate Bill 146.  Then, in keeping with our pioneering spirit, the legislature launched the state’s first Middle Income Housing Authority pilot program through Senate Bill 232, and, this year introduced the nation’s first middle income housing tax credit via House Bill 1316. 

These initiatives are all designed to increase the availability of housing that serves Coloradans at income levels that traditional affordable housing cannot and the market has not. 

These strategies compliment and grow traditional lower income housing strategies in order for our state to sustain economies and diverse communities for the long term. Focusing solely on one end of the housing continuum has left a growing gap in the middle-income segment, making housing rare and unaffordable for essential hometown workers such as social workers, nonprofit professionals, snowplow drivers and first responders.

It’s our belief, based on our collective experience, that existing housing needs assessments may not provide the level of analysis we need to determine what Area Median Income housing is needed in a community. Currently, cities rely on housing needs assessments to develop policies and strategies. These documents tend to rely on categorization of Area Median Income limits, which favor single earners, neglecting the realities of dual-income households. This oversight raises a fundamental question: Do these growing households deserve affordable housing?

They do. And the solution lies in creating publicly owned mixed-income developments that can adapt to the evolving needs of Coloradans. 

Shifting from theoretical figures to the real world, consider Summit County, where the median price for a single-family home exceeds $2 million, and the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment surpasses $2,300. This is unaffordable for virtually everyone residing or working there. While LIHTC facilitates construction through powerful tax incentives, this approach by design excludes many, if not all, Summit County residents from the pharmacist to the nonprofit professionals, all of whom help sustain Colorado’s third-largest county economic engine. 

Creating affordable housing is hard work and those tasked with developing and funding housing policy face varied challenges in addressing supply. Some communities have developers capable of building diverse housing types, while others do not. Certain communities have teachers earning below 80% of the Area Median Income, whereas others do not. But for communities to address their unique housing challenges effectively, flexibility is crucial. 

Contrary to some reports, funding middle-income housing does not divert resources from low-income housing, and they are not in conflict with one another. As the primary source of affordable housing funding, the LIHTC is highly competitive and constrained by private activity bond caps. 

Due to demand exceeding the amount of annual available tax credits, LIHTC projects often face a two- to three-year funding process, meaning without middle-income housing development in the interim, no new affordable or middle-income homes are brought to market. Middle-income housing can attract substantial private capital, traditionally allocated to market-rate projects, into the affordable housing sector to help create greater housing abundance. 

Publicly owned middle-income housing benefits all Coloradans. With complimentary investments in middle-income affordable housing, Colorado communities now have options available to them to facilitate the creation of housing at price points accessible to all individuals and families of all incomes. Everyone deserves an affordable home, and working together we can deliver them. 

Jeff Bridges lives in Greenwood Village and is a state senator for District 26, which includes Jefferson, Denver and Arapahoe counties and serves as a non-voting member of the Middle Income Housing Authority.  

Tamara Pogue lives in Dillon and has been a Summit County commissioner for four years and serves as vice chair of the Middle Income Housing Authority. 

Peter F. LiFari lives in Denver and is the chief executive officer of Adams County-based Maiker Housing Partners and serves as chair of the Middle Income Housing Authority.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.

Not long ago, many questioned if Vice President Kamala Harris was up to the task of a presidential campaign. Her polls, they feared. Her likability, they cried.

Today, those worries have not only been soundly rejected, but they’ve raised the question of why women are still so chronically underestimated in the first place. Harris had already risen through the ranks as a prosecutor turned attorney general turned vice president. Why wouldn’t she excel at this, too?

To hammer home Harris’ recent successes, below are four indicators that she has already exceeded expectations as a presidential nominee. Because no matter what happens this November, Democrats are undoubtedly better off now than they were before and we can’t forget that. It’s time to give credit where it’s due.

Fundraising: Fundraising is by no means the sole indicator of a successful candidate, but Harris is shattering records at a record pace, and that means something. 

Within the first 24 hours of her campaign, Harris hauled in over $81 million, far surpassing the recent totals of her opponent and predecessor. She didn’t stop there. She then drew a record-breaking $200 million in her first week of candidacy, leading to a whopping $310 million in only the latter portion of July. It’s a huge and much-needed uptick in Democratic support, with an impressive two-thirds of Harris’ donors reportedly giving for the first time this election cycle.

Enthusiasm: Brat. GOAT. Feminomenon. You name it, Harris has become it. Her joy and optimism have catapulted political enthusiasm in a way few expected. She’s become a global sensation almost overnight and has taken to packing stadiums so full it could make Trump green. It’s a level of enthusiasm not felt since Obama’s 2008 election, proving any doubt about Harris’ campaign acumen wholly unjustified. Best of all, her partner and First Gentleman hopeful Doug Emhoff is her biggest supporter, setting a positive example for men for generations to come.

Polling: Prior to Harris entering the race, Democrats were in a pickle. President Biden’s polls were struggling, with most indicating a tough path, if any, to victory. 

Now, polls are surging in Harris’ favor. The Economist shows Harris leading Trump, marking the first time a Democrat had topped the poll since last October. The New York Times and NPR show Harris leading Trump. Even conservative-leaning outlets show Harris leading in all seven swing states with massive gains to her overall approval ratings. It’s an unprecedented shift that has left many pollsters gobsmacked — and Trump crying “unfair.”

VP Pick: Here again, Harris impresses. Picking Gov. Tim Walz as VP was unconventional and shows her willingness to make tough decisions. It’s exactly the kind of gumption we need in a leader, and her choice has thus far been spot on. Walz is an unexpected delight, unifying Republicans and progressives alike. Whatever the outcome, Harris has demonstrated a sound choice that is worthy of respect.

Of course, no amount of achievements can guarantee a win, and there are many factors outside of Harris’ control. And even if she does win fair and square, Trump has made it abundantly clear he has no intent of ensuring a peaceful transfer of power. This sentiment is reinforced with 71% of Americans now believing Trump will not concede even if he loses. 

What this means no one knows for sure, but it’s not good. Perhaps he calls for more political violence like January 6th. Or perhaps he calls for undemocratic court challenges. We shouldn’t put anything past him at this point, nor should we expect that any Democrat can prevent Trump’s actions.

So whatever your doubts of Harris might have been, it’s clearly time to set them aside. The only question now is why anyone ever thought only Biden could give us the best chance.

Just kidding. It’s called sexism.

Trish Zornio is a scientist, lecturer and writer who has worked at some of the nation’s top universities and hospitals. She’s an avid rock climber and was a 2020 candidate for the U.S. Senate in Colorado. Trish can be found on Twitter @trish_zornio

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.

For those of you who didn’t have Tim Walz in your vice-presidential pool, here’s another chance for you.

Raise your hand if you had swiftboating on your “how desperate can Trump get in this mondo bizarro presidential campaign” bingo card?

I’ll confess I didn’t, although I now realize I should have guessed it as soon as Walz’s name was announced and Democrats began loudly touting his 24-year tenure in the National Guard, which he joined at the age of 17.

Of course, he’d be swiftboated — for the same reason that the Trump forces are busily race-baiting and slutshaming Kamala Harris.

Suddenly the race, which Donald Trump thought he had locked up before Joe Biden dropped out, looks to be tied again, with Harris even marginally ahead in most recent polls. And Walz, meanwhile, has had the kind of rollout that JD Vance could only have dreamed of.

And since the Trump team doesn’t seem to know what to do about it, they’re desperately searching through the playbook they had used to get them this far.

As we’ve been reminded, Chris LaCivita, co-chair of the Trump election campaign, was a driving force behind the reprehensible, if all-too-successful, swiftboating of John Kerry back in 2004 when George W. Bush’s campaign tried to turn Kerry’s service in Vietnam — where he earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts — into scandal.

Want early access to
Mike’s columns?

Subscribe to get an
exclusive first look at
his columns twice a week.

SUBSCRIBE

It won’t work this time for a number of reasons, starting with the fact that in 2004, when the Iraq war was raging, the candidates’ respective military service during the Vietnam war became a central issue. 

It’s a different time obviously — even Republicans, and especially Trump, don’t approve of the Iraq war any more — and if it seems like an old, tired strategy, that’s because it is.

And Democrats, including Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, the Army Ranger who served three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, are busily reminding everyone just how ugly and retrograde the swiftboating strategy looks.

“We’re not going to allow this to happen,” Crow said on a Democratic National Committee call, joined by other members of Congress who are military vets. “We’re going to defend one of our own because it’s not OK.”

Crow then moved to Twitter (OK, X) to take on JD Vance, who is apparently taking a break from attacking childless cat ladies and photo-bombing Air Force Two to lead the swiftboating forces in attacking Walz.

And, of course, Crow also came after Trump, whose relationship to military service is, uh, slightly problematic.

In one tweet, Crow wrote, “Let’s get something straight: denigrating a veteran’s service when your running mate *checks notes* dodged the draft, called veterans ‘suckers’ and ‘losers,’ and refused to honor fallen WW1 soldiers to avoid getting rained on isn’t just weird. It’s a flat out disgrace.”

In another, he put it this way:  “We’re starting to see a pattern here. Turning on your own fellow veteran for political gain is … kind of like turning on your beliefs to be the running mate for a man you once described as a ‘moral disaster.’”

Other Democratic veterans, including Pete Buttigieg and Mark Kelly, made similar cases in defense of Walz. If Kerry didn’t answer the charges against him quickly enough, Democrats seemed to have learned the lesson.

The case against Walz begins with the fact that he retired from the Guard two months before his unit was informed it would deploy to Iraq. He was running for Congress at the time, and the decision to retire after 24 years, several veterans remember, was very difficult for him.

But it became an issue when two colleagues who served with Walz charged that he had effectively deserted his post. That the charge came when Walz was running for governor by two vets who disagreed with his politics is probably worth considering.

The second point is that there is a video of Walz as governor speaking in support of gun-safety laws. He told a crowd that “we can make sure these weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.”

Walz did not serve in a war zone, but he did teach the use of weapons of war, including artillery. Does that make him guilty of “stolen valor” or was he just trying to make a point that he understood the danger of, say, assault-style weapons?

But Vance, who did serve in Iraq as a Marine “combat correspondent,” blasted Walz,  saying, “What was this weapon that you carried into war, given that you abandoned your unit right before they went to Iraq, and he has not spent a day in a combat zone? What bothers me about Tim Walz is the stolen valor garbage.”

Some Republicans also say they’re bothered by the fact that Walz has described his rank as command sergeant major when he actually retired as a master sergeant. But, in fact, he was a command sergeant major in the Guard, but apparently retired before finishing coursework for the position.

OK, there’s some smoke — there usually is — but does anyone see a dumpster fire here?

If you think the charges reek of desperation, just listen to how Trump, in his rambling news conference the other day, described Walz — as a “radical man that is — he has done things that — he has positions that are not even possible to believe that they exist. He is going for things nobody has ever heard of. Heavy into the transgender world. Heavy into lots of different worlds.”

Weird, huh?

It got weirder when he turned to Harris, or maybe you didn’t hear Trump’s Willie Brown story. Harris used to date Brown, the powerful California Democrat. She was single at the time and he was very publicly separated from his wife.

And when Trump wasn’t talking about transgender heaviness or delusionally calling his January 6 crowd bigger than the MLK crowd for the March on Washington or charging that Harris wasn’t smart enough to hold a news conference, he moved on to the story of a harrowing helicopter ride he shared with Brown.

Trump said the helicopter had to make an emergency landing and that, “We maybe thought this was the end.” And at the time, he recalled Brown telling him “terrible things” about Harris.

Trump’s story continues: “And Willie was, he was a little concerned. So, I know him, but I know him pretty well. I mean, I haven’t seen him in years, but he told me terrible things about her. But this is what you’re telling me, anyway, I guess. But he had a big part in what happened with Kamala. But he — he, I don’t know, maybe he’s changed his tune. But he — he was not a fan of hers very much at that point.”

Couple of problems with the story. The helicopter  ride was with then California Gov. Jerry Brown, not former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, who later said he’d never been in a helicopter with Trump. Current Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was in the helicopter that day, said there was no emergency landing and “no discussion of Kamala Harris.”

And then there’s this: Trump called the Times to argue that the helicopter story was true. According to a story in Politico, though, Trump might have been in the helicopter with Nate Holden — a former Los Angeles city council member who, like Willie Brown, is Black. Holden said he was the one in a helicopter, in the late 1990s, with Trump when it nearly crashed.

In other words, the Willie Brown story holds up about as well as the swiftboating story.

Here’s an idea: Maybe it’s time to try something new.

Mike Littwin has been a columnist for too many years to count. He has covered Dr. J, four presidential inaugurations, six national conventions and countless brain-numbing speeches in the New Hampshire and Iowa snow. Sign up for Mike’s newsletter.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.

At some point, I assume Dave Williams will just stand before a camera, spread his arms, and yell, “Are you not entertained?”

Whatever else Williams is — and opinions run the whole gamut — Williams has kept himself front and center of the Republican implosion since he took the chairmanship last year. I personally declared the GOP dead after the 2022 election, before Williams took the reins. 

And I stand by that.

What Williams, his acolytes, and the faithful resistance are fighting over are the scraps of power left to Republicans in this state. Demographics, poor policy choices and a disciplined Democratic Party have put Colorado in very solid blue status. 

To wit, a month ago when Democrats were atwitter about President Joe Biden’s campaign, there was speculation that New Mexico could be a flip target for Donald Trump’s campaign; no mention of Colorado despite the fact that prior to 2004, the last year either state sent its electoral votes to the red team, Colorado was far more likely to go in the Republican presidential tally than our southern neighbor.

At this point, the only question remaining in Colorado is whether Democrats can hold their supermajority in the state House while adding one seat in the state Senate to match that feat.

Colorado is the bluest state between Illinois and California.

So enter Williams, who is like the evil muppet of the state. He has a constant scowl, throws his arms around a lot, and just spews wild words without thought for strategy or humanity. You tune in to see good guys win against him.

Republicans got that in the congressional race between Williams and Rep.-in-Waiting Jeff Crank. Williams got absolutely throttled by a 2-to-1 margin despite funneling state party funds into mailers for his benefit.

You would think that would be cause for self-reflection. Not for Williams, though. It is a skill he has never learned and actively denigrates in others. No, Williams gets beat like a drum and blames the mallet. 

So rather than taking a step back and maybe stepping down, he not only chastised party leaders who publicly opposed his continued leadership, he sued them. He had his cronies on the executive committee declare their attempt at democratic action void and then went running to a court to get an injunction.

And guess what he did in court? He lied.

Funny enough, my last column was about Williams’ lies. He emulates his hero, Donald Trump, so fully that he decided that deceiving a court would be a great plan. Williams marched into a district court days before he was slated to be deposed and convinced a none-the-wiser judge that the meeting should be halted. Self-represented Republicans looking to do the right thing were overmatched by Williams’ brazen tactics to hang onto his fiefdom.

Luckily for Williams’ foes, they got some good advice from the former GOP counsel. When he helped them ask the judge for reconsideration, it soon became apparent that Williams’ prior position did not hold water. With the shades pulled open, the judge reversed his decision and allowed Williams’ detractors to proceed.

Now they have scheduled a meeting for Aug. 24 — or seven days before the next regularly scheduled meeting of the GOP central committee on Aug. 31.

In the past month I have been to two different operas, and I am sure that what is happening now in the Colorado Republican Party is even more over-the-top and embellished than anything I saw in Santa Fe or Central City (though, for the record, La Traviata is worth the six-hour drive and Street Scene is a fun day out around Denver). 

My guess is that everyone dies in the end, including Williams, the candidates who have been abandoned months before the November election and the Republican Party, which is still twitching despite dying long ago.

As for Williams, I am not sure what will happen next for him. I do not imagine he will simply disappear, though. He has plenty of rabid supporters and enough ambition to overlook his myriad flaws. After all, the last time he lost a congressional race he turned it into the top seat in the state party.

My guess is that he goes after RINOs he blames for his lot in life. He has always had a temper and been very generous when it comes to pointing out blame. Since he has already created a shadow operation highlighting his critics, why not start his own shadow party? Several of his supporters in El Paso County did just that a little over a year ago; certainly he has to recognize his own greatness enough to expand the effort statewide.

Can you imagine two separate Republican parties duking it out for legitimacy over the next year or two? All while they become more and more impotent? It is almost too thrilling to hope for.

But it sure would be entertaining. And given that the GOP and Williams will not be doing any winning anytime soon, entertainment is the least they can offer.

Mario Nicolais is an attorney and columnist who writes on law enforcement, the legal system, health care and public policy. Follow him on Twitter: @MarioNicolaiEsq.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.

Over the past several years, discussions around Colorado’s property taxes have gotten more intense, and, unfortunately, less informed. We are at a crucial moment where the General Assembly is considering entering into special session to enact tax policy changes to benefit the most wealthy in society to potentially avoid the threat that a ballot initiative might benefit the most wealthy in society even more. The General Assembly should not cower to the threat.

Property taxes are the primary way we fund our schools, fire departments and crucial public infrastructure.  Wildfires have raged across the state this month, and many of the brave women and men fighting them who work for local fire districts are counting on property tax collections to pay for the health care and healing they will need when the fires are contained.  

At the end of the 2024 legislative session, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass property tax reform legislation that was comprehensive and responsible. State Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer, a Republican prime sponsor who I’ve worked with on important finance legislation, said on the Senate floor: “Could we have gone farther? Probably, but not without seriously crippling the state’s budget.”  

The day has come where the General Assembly is contemplating going further and seriously crippling the state’s budget.  A group called Advance Colorado led by Michael Fields, who has close ties to the wealthy and conservative Koch family, has put forward ballot Initiatives 50 and 108, which would devastate public services in Colorado. Some of the provisions would hurt local governments directly. Others would hurt the state by requiring that state money offset the hurt to local governments, but the state is where the most important money for education and health care comes from. 

The situation became more unfortunate when Colorado Concern, an organization that was formerly a cornerstone of bipartisan leadership, joined the destructive effort.  Colorado Concern was previously led by former state Sen. Mike Kopp and took solid leadership on matters like statewide transportation funding. We worked together well and found the best balance of the private sector and public sector.  That an organization I have cooperated with so deeply has joined in this act of hostage-taking is very disappointing.

The state’s school districts, fire districts and park and recreation districts are doing their jobs. They have lean budgets, hard-working staff and an energy to make their communities better. Our system of government has many problems, but local governments aren’t the issue here.

Advance Colorado and Colorado Concern have offered no plan as to how to offset the drastic cuts to the budgets of school districts, fire districts, counties and cities that Initiatives 50 and 108 would require.  I once again ask them, let’s see if they respond.  

Many have fear about the potential impacts of Initiatives 50 and 108, and they should.  The measures would be devastating to our state.  But we must not govern out of fear.  Across multiple polling surveys, neither Initiative 50 nor 108 has received at least 40 percent in polls.  Colorado citizens aren’t asking for dramatic cuts to public services; wealthy individuals who don’t have any need for public services are.

I served in the General Assembly when we addressed many difficult questions.  How do we handle construction defects? What do we do about sexual harassment? What can we do to make our state retirement system solvent?  All these questions were hard, but in none of them did we say we might need to take a certain position because we were under threat by wealthy interests.

The General Assembly reached a deal that Republicans Sen. Kirkmeyer and Rep. Lisa Frizell and Democrats Sen. Chris Hansen and Rep. Chris deGruy Kennedy could agree to and Gov. Jared Polis was willing to sign. Changing broad bipartisan public policy due to threat by moneyed special interests is the wrong choice, and every indication is that Colorado voters agree.

The question at this moment is whether the General Assembly will govern out of fear or govern out of strength, whether the right public policy comes from thoughtful bipartisan consideration or from those who can afford to pay folks to sit outside a King Soopers to collect signatures. 

The answer isn’t the easiest one, but it’s the right one. The General Assembly should say enough is enough and let Initiatives 50 and 108 lose on their merits rather than cave to those who brought the destructive measures before us. 

Matt Gray of Broomfield is a career public finance attorney who spent six years as a state legislator and chaired the House Transportation and Local Government Committee and served on the on the Finance Committee.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.

I have a pretty good idea why Kamala Harris defied conventional wisdom — and maybe Electoral College wisdom, too — to pick Tim Walz as her running mate.

You can blame, or credit if you like, the disaster that is JD Vance.

Walz is the anti-Vance pick. He’s the anti-anti-cat-lady pick. He’s the small-town guy who not only isn’t “weird” — Walz’s Trump-Vance descriptor that somehow lifted him from semi-obscurity to the Democratic ticket — but might be, as politicians go, something closely resembling normal.

I mean, if he weren’t a liberal Democrat, which he is, he might even fit Sarah Palin’s description of a “real American.” You know, one of 25 people in his high school graduation class — half of whom, he jokes (I think he’s joking), were cousins. Joined the Army National Guard at 17 and retired 24 years later as a master sergeant.

Owns guns. Hunts for turkey and pheasant. Was a high school football coach, for cripes’ sake, whose team won a state championship. 

He’s folksy.  He’s avuncular. And if you’re into the dad vibe, you might even think he’s funny.

He’s a two-term governor in a midwestern state after spending 12 years in Congress — first flipping a rural Republican-held district — after spending 20-some years as a teacher.

Want early access to
Mike’s columns?

Subscribe to get an
exclusive first look at
his columns twice a week.

SUBSCRIBE

He’s not a lawyer — the first non-lawyer, according to the Washington Post, to run as vice-president on the Democratic ticket in 60 years. He’s not an Ivy Leaguer. In fact, he graduated from Chadron State College, which is apparently in his native Nebraska, where, last I looked, elitism went to die.

And in his introductory video as Harris’ running mate — he’ll obviously need more than a few introductions since most people have no idea who he is — Walz stressed his rural roots. Of course he did. Soon, I’m sure they’ll roll out Walz’s award-winning recipe for his Turkey Trot Tater Hotdish. It’s all part of the package.

Most importantly, if Harris’ team did a decent job with its speed vetting, I don’t see how Walz will do much harm, which is the vice-presidential nominee’s main job, other than, of course, attacking the other guys.

Unless, that is, you buy the Republican line on Walz, which you’ve already heard. He’s an extremist whom they’ve called “radical” and “dangerously liberal” and someone — this from Vance — “who listens to the Hamas wing” of the Democratic Party.

Trump took it a few steps further down the rabbit hole, of course, saying Walz would be the “worst VP in history,” and — get this — “would unleash hell on earth.”

Weird, huh?

The conventional wisdom was that Harris would pick Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a popular moderate who might have proved to be the difference in carrying the most important swing state in the election. Or she might have gone with Arizona’s Mark Kelly, who is not just a senator but also a former astronaut and from yet another swing state.

There is risk involved in picking Walz. If Democrats lose Pennsylvania and that defeat puts Trump over the top in the Electoral College, the decision to choose Walz over Shapiro will be second-guessed from November until approximately forever.

In any case, the VP picks are both from the Midwest — blue Minnesota vs. red Ohio — and the stakes obviously extend past Pennsylvania to the other swing states of Michigan and Wisconsin. The latest polling in those three states, all of which are must wins for Democrats, is basically even. And if voters care about who is vice president — history suggests that most people don’t — they present a clear contrast.

Vance’s “Hamas wing” comment was a not-so-veiled shot at the fact that some progressives thought Shapiro, who is Jewish, was too pro-Israel. But I’m not sure there’s much difference between Walz and Shapiro, or among any of the possible Democratic VP contenders for that matter, on Israeli policy. And the suggestion, heard in some right-wing corners, that the pick is somehow antisemitic is, of course, ludicrous. I mean, how many Jews are on the Republican ticket?

But Walz is a mainstream liberal and, in picking Walz, Harris clearly made a policy statement. Walz, who began his career as a moderate Democrat, has become more liberal over the years, particularly when it comes to guns. And after Democrats took over both houses of the Minnesota state legislature, he signed into law a laundry list of progressive legislation, much of which won’t look entirely unfamiliar to Coloradans.

You can start with universal gun background checks and a “red flag” law. Legalizing pot. A state law protecting abortion rights. Restoring voting rights to felons, meaning Donald Trump might consider moving there someday.  A state law protecting the right to gender-affirming care. Another allowing undocumented Minnesotans to apply for driver’s licenses. Child tax credit. Free meals for K-12 students.

Those laws are definitely progressive. But how many of those laws actually poll well? Even Vance, the self-proclaimed pro-family candidate who missed the vote on the recent bipartisan bill expanding the child tax credit, is apparently pro-child tax credit. He even falsely accused Harris of opposing the credit.

And, by the way, Gwen Walz — Tim’s wife — underwent years of fertility treatments before giving birth to their two children. Yes, Walz is definitely pro-IVF.

But it’s on gun policy that Walz most obviously changed. He was once among the NRA’s favorite Democrats, earning an A rating. After the 2018 shooting at Parkland High School, he came out in favor of a ban on assault weapons. And now, he says of the NRA, “I get straight F’s, and I sleep just fine.”

The criticism that is most likely to stick is that Walz was governor during the riots following George Floyd’s murder. Republicans in Minnesota charged that he didn’t move quickly enough to send in the National Guard. Of course, we might remember when Trump was just a little slow in sending in the reinforcements to the Capitol on January 6. 

Walz also had a DUI charge 30 years ago, but now doesn’t drink unless it’s Diet Mountain Dew, which, in a coincidence that defies explanation, is also Vance’s drink of choice.

What Democrats hope will stick is how Walz presents as Minnesota nice, which they think will contrast nicely with Vance’s exhibition of straight-up weirdness.

I mean, the craziest thing that we know so far about Walz is that two weeks ago, hardly anyone had ever heard of him and now he could be our next vice president. Which, in this strangest of strange presidential campaigns, means that we should have known all along that Harris would pick him.

Mike Littwin has been a columnist for too many years to count. He has covered Dr. J, four presidential inaugurations, six national conventions and countless brain-numbing speeches in the New Hampshire and Iowa snow. Sign up for Mike’s newsletter.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.