The strong turnout was most impressive in terms of first-time delegates, which an impromptu show of hands revealed made up somewhere around two-thirds of those attending north Jeffco’s Senate District 19 assembly. Similar anecdotes and reports from other districts suggest the large-scale infusion of fresh grassroots political blood was a countywide phenomenon. Not a good sign for the Obama administration from a major swing county in a major swing state.

How that translates to the local county and state legislative races remains to be seen. But the fact that so many showed up to participate in the process on a beautiful Colorado weekend when virtually every race to be determined was uncontested (though getting to hear of County Commissioner John Odom‘s rock-solid fiscally conservative principles and his lighthearted “The Bald Truth” campaign theme idea were a highlight) — well, it speaks volumes.

The only exception of a contested race was House District 22 in south Jeffco, where my conservative friend Justin Everett bested Loren Bauman 58 to 42 percent. The rules of the game state that a candidate must earn at least 30 percent to win a spot on the June 26 primary ballot, or else try to collect signatures to petition on. As a result of the assembly outcome, Everett’s name will appear on the ballot’s top line. From the campaign press release:

On the victory, Everett said he was surprised, but: “We were honored and humbled with the convincing victory at the House District 22 Assembly.”

When asked about why he thought the margin of victory was so great, Everett opined: “Our message that ‘Conservative Values’ are in fact ‘American Values’ seemed to resonate with the delegates today.”

Everett continued to say about the win: “That as Republicans, we must paint in bold colors, not pale pastels and make it unmistakably clear where we stand on the issues – was clearly the message that the delegates wanted to hear”.

The candidate’s principled conservative leadership and proven commitment to the causes of limited, constitutional government and student-centered education reform made me proud to join a distinguished list of Everett’s personal endorsements.

As Colorado Republicans look to take control of the state senate and expand their narrow grip on the state house, no seat may be safer than HD 22. Therefore, the primary is THE race. In three months we will know with near absolute certainty who the district’s next representative will be. Majorities matter, but so do principles. That’s why I support the most conservative credible candidate in this contest. Everett will add not only business experience and savvy but also a sturdy spine to the GOP legislative caucus.

While the HD 22 race is unique in Jeffco this year, it has paled next to a couple of other primary contests further south along the Front Range. A featured column in the latest Colorado Statesman — copies of which were handed out, as always, at the Assembly — highlighted the state’s top 12 legislative races for 2012.

At the top of the list is the intraparty El Paso County (Colorado Springs) showdown between House Majority Amy Stephens and fellow Republican Representative Marsha Looper, drawn into the same HD 19 boundaries by a Democrat-friendly redistricting process. Saturday’s El Paso assembly proved the heated competition lived up to its billing, as Looper edged Stephens by only 10 votes out of nearly 300 cast. At Number 6 on the Statesman‘s list, grassroots insurgent and rising star Owen Hill scored a stronger 64%-36% win over sitting Representative Larry Liston in the Senate 10 GOP primary contest.

The dynamics of those two El Paso County primary races provide some potentially colorful story lines and some fascinating insights into the dynamics of various Republican coalitions and interests. But to me, HD 22 presents a strong and clear conservative choice. I hope to see Justin Everett join other great candidates from my neck of the woods — like Lang Sias, Libby Szabo and Robert Ramirez — on the general election ballot and surging to victory in November.

Who will wake up and turn this ship around? Just in case you didn’t understand why the 2012 national elections were so important…

• Education Policy Center (including the blog Ed Is Watching) for coverage of the world of education policy, school choice and reform issues
• Also occasionally on the Ed News Colorado blog
• Writings on teachers unions and related government labor issues at Public Sector Inc
• A new less-than-regular column on education labor and related issues at Colorado Peak Politics

Nevertheless, this year you can count on this space for more coverage of events at the legislature and analysis of the upcoming state legislative elections — much like these 2010 posts on the state house and senate.

That sort of in-depth analysis will wait ’till later. For now, to whet the appetite, a quick look at House District 27 — 2010′s correctly called #1 pickup for Republicans. Democrats want it back, naturally. But given the recent reapportionment that added to the district’s GOP registration advantage, it’s an uphill climb. A month ago the liberal blog Jeffco Pols reported that Big Labor’s Tim Allport was stepping up to challenge Republican freshman Rep. Libby Szabo:

But can he win? Allport’s certainly connected enough to the activist core of the Colorado Democratic Party, and we suspect that every notable Dem in Jeffco will at least go canvass for the labor leader. Whether or not he poses a serious threat to Szabo, however, all comes down to his fundraising. If Allport’s numbers are competitive, HD-27 might be useful in the Democratic attempt to regain the House.

If Allport doesn’t pull in the amount of money he needs to, however, it gives good reason for Democrats to ignore HD-27 and focus on easier ways to recapture the speaker’s office. The next few weeks, then, will be critical to the overall viability of Allport’s campaign as he both picks off low-hanging fruit and reaches out to new donors.

Well, early signs indicate that the Arvada house district may not shape up to be on the Democrats’ 2012 hit list. Allport’s first 40 days’ take was less than $2,500, and more than $1,000 reportedly has been spent already. Too early to count him out, though. The unions’ ability to cash in quickly with small donor committee dollars keeps the challenger a threat for now.

Szabo sits pretty with more than $33,000. Still, she and the GOP team will be working hard, not taking anything for granted. If they are going to maintain their one-seat edge in the House, Republicans will have to model that approach statewide.

While CD 1′s hard-working Dr. Mike Fallon (#2 on the list) looks to be keeping true to his word to be a one-time candidate, the conservatives occupying the next two spots both could be back in the fray for 2012. It was more than 13 months ago I observed about CD 7 primary runner-up Lang Sias (#4):

Depending on how redistricting plays out, he might end up inside Senate District 19. Would he be interested in taking on this challenge in 2012?

Word on the street is that Arvada resident Sias indeed is seriously considering a run for SD 19, and is expected to make a decision early next year. The seat is currently represented by liberal Evie Hudak. Her seat stands at the top of any Republican list to challenge for control of the state legislature. Sias’ 2010 Congressional run doubtless has bought him some invaluable experience and local name recognition. It’s not clear what other Republican might be considering a go at SD 19, but Sen. Hudak cannot be relishing a possible challenge from the father and former Navy fighter pilot.

Owen Hill (#3) — who finished 340 votes short of unseating Senate Majority Leader John Morse (D-Colorado Springs) — has declared for the newly redrawn Senate District 10. A beneficiary of the reapportionment process, Hill’s stiffest competition this time around will come in the GOP primary versus State Rep. Larry Liston (who has a relatively low 2011 score from the Colorado Union of Taxpayers but did sponsor the failed anti-protectionist HB 1284).

Others mentioned in the November 2010 post to keep an eye on… Christine Mastin was appointed state party treasurer in April, and Danny Stroud capably took the helm of the Denver Republican Party earlier in the year, while Brian Vande Krol is weighing another highly competitive run at a state legislative seat.

As I often say, if you like how the union spends your money on politics, you have no reason to complain and absolutely nothing to do. But for those teachers who would rather support their own political causes, or use the money to pay for Christmas shopping or just save for a rainy day, then members need to be informed of their opportunity. One way to find out how to get the Colorado teachers union political refund is to watch the video:

For those who want to cut to the chase, all the information you need on the Every Member Option political refunds ($39 for CEA, up to $24 for some of the CEA locals) is available on the Independent Teachers website. Or you can go directly to CEA’s online refund request form.

In the episode Jon describes the notifications about teacher options as my personal charity work — the kind of charity work where one gets called nasty names. So be it. In the last-minute rush before the holidays, and tomorrow’s all-important December 15 deadline, here’s hoping this post makes the difference for someone out there.

You certainly don’t need to watch it for my sake, but please watch it to help keep hope alive… and spread the word. Why? As I wrote in an in-depth post-election analysis for Ed News Colorado, the message has been sent that it’s time to do something different, more effective, more productive with K-12 education. And Douglas County is one of the leading pioneers. (Here’s another post-election piece — about Prop 103 and the teachers union — you might enjoy.)

Now tonight, it’s on to CU-Boulder for a movie premiere panel event, where I figure to be in the minority. Should be fun….

From school board races to mill levy and bond measures, there are a number of issues pertaining to education in Colorado being decided this evening. Well known is the fate of the Proposition 103 “For the Children” tax hike — which not only crashed and burned but also disintegrated in a ball of blue-hot flame (64% No vote at last count). Two out of three Denver Public Schools board seats went to the reform ticket, with a third between challenger Jennifer Draper-Carson and incumbent Arturo Jimenez literally too close to call at this hour.

Disappointing news in my own backyard of Jefferson County, where the reform, Republican-backed “Dads” ticket of Jim Powers and Preston Branaugh were defeated. In my mind, though, the story of the night has to be in Douglas County — where a unanimous majority in favor of the nation’s first school board-initiated voucher-like program appears headed for complete electoral vindication. Other lesser-touted school board results of note:

• In Adams 12, the state’s fifth-largest district, conservative Mark Clark won re-election and was joined by challenger Norm Jennings, who won a convincing victory (Republican-backed Richard Ezo lost his race)
• In Colorado Springs 11, the largest district in the Pikes Peak region, conservative Bob Null was re-elected and joined by former district communications director Elaine Naleski (sadly, reform-minded Lisanne McNew was defeated)
• In Greeley, two strong reform candidates prevailed to take three seats in a pair of races that featured 14 candidates: Scott Rankin and Logan Richardson (fellow conservative Geoff Broughton did not prevail, however)
• In both Poudre (Fort Collins) and Lewis-Palmer 38 (El Paso County), reform-minded slates all sadly went down to defeat
• Conservative Ann Tisue beat out her liberal opponent in Mesa County 51 and Jeff Leany cruises through unopposed, marking a likely shift in the reform direction for what is by far the largest district on the Western Slope
• Conservative Bob Kerrigan, who boldly came out against the local mill levy in Thompson School District, has an unofficial narrow lead of 228 votes — though even if he wins, he might be a lone voice of dissent on the board (where have I seen that before?)
• Falcon 49 incumbent treasurer Andy Holloman finished third in a four-way race for two seats — I’m not entirely clear what the results mean for the district’s bold innovation plans, but I will be digging for answers
• Conservative Karen Hoopes — wife of 2010 Republican state legislative candidate Kaarl Hoopes — looks very much like she has won a spot on the Mapleton Board of Education

A mixed bag, but all in all a positive signal for the conservative reform team against the always well-organized forces of the status quo. Meanwhile, a host of local mill levy, bond and BEST facility matching grant elections were held tonight. I haven’t been able to do a full roundup, but the results by-and-large appear to have been carried down with Senator Rollie Heath’s Proposition 103. These include the following tax and debt elections, which according to unofficial results all appear headed for defeat:

• Douglas County Schools
• Mesa County 51
• Pueblo County 70
• Thompson R-2J (Loveland)
• Brighton 27J
• Englewood Public Schools
• Sheridan 2
• Bennett 29J
• Falcon 49
• Peyton 23 JT
• Eagle County Schools
• Garfield County Re-2
• Garfield County 16
• Weld County Re-1

A handful of districts (mostly small- or medium-sized) I’ve been able to find defied the odds and achieved victory, including:

• Mill levy overrides in Cheyenne Mountain 12, Roaring Fork (Glenwood Springs) and Byers 32J
• BEST matching funds grant elections, primarily to construct new schools, in Ellicott 22, Big Sandy 100J, and Prairie Re-11

Not all results were easily available, but the large sample indicates a clear majority of the school district tax and debt elections (and especially in the larger districts) failed. Seeing some success in the matching funds grant elections is not so surprising, since the local tax dollar’s power is effectively doubled in the voter’s mind. I’m sure some will want to know what the three successful MLO districts did to persuade their local voters.

In the final estimation, taking what you can from an off-year election, tonight’s results are a resounding vote for fiscal restraint and an encouraging (if not perfect) result for local reform. Given the hand they’ve been dealt, what will the new reform (and status quo) board members do next? Stay tuned….

Colorado has one issue on the statewide ballot this year: Proposition 103, a large tax hike sold as a way to increase revenues for K-12 and higher education. Unfortunately, there are two major problems with this proposal that render it unworthy of support.

First, it’s a job-killer that very well could prolong and deepen our state’s current recession. An Independence Institute issue paper by Dr. Barry Poulson finds that more than 11,000 jobs will be killed, a devastating analysis of the Prop 103 “domino” effect most creatively expressed in this amazing 3-minute video:

Second, the case for more K-12 education funding rests on a very weak foundation that lacks valuable context. Mike Rosen cited some numbers I dug up for him from the Colorado Department of Education in his column today for the Denver Post:

Complaints that public education spending in Colorado has been slashed in recent years conveniently ignore the big picture. Ben DeGrow at the Independence Institute reports that total annual expenditures on K-12, adjusted for inflation, from 1999 to 2010 have increased by $3.2 billion or 46 percent. Per pupil spending is up 24 percent. There’s little to show for it in the way of results.

Simply put, that quick one-two punch should inform Colorado voters why Prop 103 deserves to go down in flames. The Independence Institute’s Ed Is Watching blog also has a similar, more lighthearted take.

I’m heavily biased (take time to read the brief credits), so I’m really curious to see what six entries could have finished ahead of this “Fiscal Child Abuse” video masterpiece. Maybe the girls are so cute that they somehow downplay the gravity of the message? I don’t buy it, but that’s the only explanation I can think of why this video didn’t finish even higher.

But anyway, kudos to my Independence Institute colleagues for their creative, production and/or supporting dramatic roles: Tracy Kimball-Smith, Amy Oliver, Todd Shepherd and Jon Caldara. For their sakes and for mine, take the two and a half minutes to watch it all, especially the outtakes at the end. You’ll be entertained and educated!

As my juvenile alter ego at Ed Is Watching pointed out:

…it’s a story like 13-year-old Nate Oakley’s that brings to life the need for Douglas County vouchers, and the real threat created by lawsuits filed by the ACLU and other groups.

Find all the resources you’ll need to follow the developments and ins-and-outs of the Douglas County Pilot Choice Scholarship Program on the Education Policy Center website.

• Leading 19th century American politician James Blaine had a Catholic mother; therefore
• The Blaine Amendment he crafted into the state constitutions of Colorado and numerous others were bastions of modern “secular” thought promoting the separation of church and state, as understood by the ACLU and its compatriots; therefore
• Republicans in the 1800s were much more secular and enlightened than their contemporary counterparts; and
• Forget the fact that parents are given a choice, the Douglas County school board is funneling money to religious schools in violation of a benign state constitutional provision.

Really? Bad history may make for clever political potshots, but beyond that it has little practical use. The leading flaw in Quillen’s column is a fundamental (and willful?) misunderstanding of 19th century American public education — which was “nondenominational” Protestant but clearly not secular as the columnist imagines.

Dick Komer of the Institute for Justice explains it well in his fact-based 2007 testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The following quote is taken from the relevant discussion on pages 33 to 38:

As a variety of historians have shown, the context in which Blaine Amendments arose encompasses the creation of the state public school systems and the perceived need to “Americanize” immigrants, particularly Catholic immigrants, to the United States in the 19th century. From their inception, the public schools were envisioned by their founders such as Horace Mann and Henry Barnard as “nondenominational” schools open to members of all faiths. But by “nondenominational,” these men and their allies in the state legislatures did not mean that the public schools were non-religious or secular. Today we are used to dichotomizing schools into “secular public schools” and “religious private schools,” but that was not the dominant paradigm at the time of the creation of the
common schools.

By “nondenominational” public schools, the public school advocates meant that the schools would reflect a nondenominational Protestantism, a Protestantism that would not teach the doctrines that separated one Protestant sect from another but would rather reflect a generic Protestant approach. Bible reading without commentary, a distinctly Protestant religious practice unacceptable to Catholics, the singing of Protestant hymns, and textbooks giving a distinctly Protestant view of history were all integral components of the education provided in the public schools. Protestant clergymen were among the most vocal supporters of the common school movement and many of the early superintendents of state departments of education were Protestant clergymen.

The compelling argument goes on, a highly significant part of the historical record completely glossed over by Quillen. Highlighting this omission causes the columnist’s case to fall apart like a stack of cards. And that doesn’t even address another flaw in his piece — the careful avoidance of the key distinction between direct institutional aid on one hand (outlawed by Blaine) and parental choice between a series of religious and non-religious schools (upheld in the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision Zelman v Simmons-Harris).

Was GOP House Speaker and Presidential candidate James Blaine a virulent anti-Catholic bigot, or was his amendment introduced essentially to “forestall the danger of bitter and divisive agitation on the question” of Catholic immigrant rights and religious liberties? This is the straw man Quillen sets up, rooted in an assumption of the politician’s personal views. Even if the answer is the latter, as it likely is, Blaine’s motives aren’t nearly as crucial as the milieu into which his amendment was introduced and the clearly accepted definition of “sectarian” embedded in Colorado’s and other state constitutions.

I would imagine educational choice opponents can come up with a more compelling case to deprive 500 Douglas County students of educational opportunity. But if Quillen’s Sunday column is the best they’ve got, then in any reasonably fair-minded setting the Douglas County Choice Scholarship program would win by a TKO.

I post this verse from “America the Beautiful” most every Memorial Day, but it remains appropriate:

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine,
Till all success be nobleness,
And every gain divine.

And this year is the 150th anniversary of the U.S. Civil War (check out the great daily blog from The American Interest, “The Long Recall”), so what could be more fitting than a period piece that conveys not only haunting Victorian sentimentalism but also some transcendent feelings about the loss of loved ones to war:

Makes me think of ancestors lost during military service in the Civil War, just a few who represented the hundreds of thousands lost in that terrible conflict:

• Private Jacob Buffington, 3rd Ohio Cavalry
• Private Andrew Preston, 9th Michigan Infantry
• Private Americus Tanner, 151st New York Infantry

Remember today to pay respects to a fallen soldier, sailor, airman or Marine, to pause for just a moment to reflect on the great sacrifice made. Cue “Taps”….

A number of other states have laws mandating that negotiations between government-employee unions and government agencies be open to the public. In Colorado, that decision is currently left to local government. Colorado law is generally friendly to public openness and disclosure regarding government meetings and documents. Since a majority of funding for public-school districts in Colorado comes not from local property taxes but from the state’s coffers, the state legislature clearly has standing to join other states in passing a uniform law opening these kinds of negotiations to the light of public scrutiny.

As I reported in my 2010 Independence Institute issue backgrounder “Colorado Education and Open Negotiations,” six states currently have laws on the books guaranteeing this brand of taxpayer-friendly government transparency. In Colorado you have to go back to 2005 for Senate Bill 175 and to 2004 for House Bill 1242, the legislature’s last serious (and in the case of 1242, nearly successful) attempts to shine light on negotiations between governments and unions. With momentum growing locally around this issue, might Colorado lawmakers try this approach again?

If so, they might not make Colorado the 7th state with open teachers union negotiations. This week brings word from the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Trey Kovacs that the Pelican State might beat Colorado to the punch. Kovacs observes the benefits and limitations of Louisiana’s legislative proposal:

Public Employee Bargaining Transparency Act does not solve problems of corruption or spendthrift attitudes in government; however, it does allow the citizens of states to be conscious of officials who have put the states and citizens into troubling fiscal positions. Transparency in negotiations allows the citizens to give input to make the contracts responsible, and is in the best interest of the taxpayer. Citizens with the ability to observe these negotiations would be more likely to unseat officials who are not concerned with using taxpayer money to serve the interests of the taxpayers.

Here is a copy of the Louisiana legislation. The Act is inclusive of all government workers, not just school district employees. Either approach is an improvement over the status quo in our backyard. Are any Colorado lawmakers paying attention?

However, I found the apparent reason for HB 1320 being held up on the House floor a bit disheartening — albeit not surprising, given the unimpressive record of the new Republican majority:

Rep. Keith Swerdfeger, R-Pueblo West, who owns a heavy construction company, said he can’t vote for the bill.

“I have been a union contractor the entire length of our contracting for 40 years,” Swerdfeger said. “We always came to the table and were able to reach an agreement.

“I would not support the bill. Our relations with the unions have been pretty good over the years.”

Getting a controversial bill to pass can be very challenging with the narrowest of majorities in the state legislature’s lower chamber (33-32). But then again, a little education might help. For the sake of Rep. Swerdfeger and any other policy makers who might be willing to listen: There is a significant and substantive difference between the dynamics of collective bargaining in the private sector and in the public sector. Check out this recent op-ed of mine for some basic background.

Then, even more to the point, read this great column by David Denholm:

Government is inherently a monopoly. If you don’t like a decision of government, you can’t check with the competition to see whether you can get a decision more to your liking. Business, on the other hand, is competitive. If you don’t like the cars being made by one manufacturer, you can check with another to see whether you can find one you like better.

In business, the bottom line is dollars. No matter how politically popular a business decision might be, if it bankrupts the company it is a failure. In government, the bottom line is votes. No matter how financially ruinous a decision might be, if it gets you re-elected, it is a success.

More importantly, government is sovereign, while all other institutions in our society depend on free choice. Sovereignty is the right to use force to enforce decisions. We may not think about it in our everyday lives, but lurking in the background behind every government rule or regulation is the fact that government has the right and the power to use force to enforce it.

So, I’m sure there are some good reasons to consider voting against HB 1320. But making a personal observation that union bargaining has worked in a business context truly misses the point — and plays right into the hands of those pushing to expand the size and scope of government.

Currently, Colorado is one of 11 states where collective bargaining for government employees is permitted. In 34 states plus D.C., government bargaining is mandatory. To pass HB 1320 (which right now appears to be stuck in limbo only to die as the clock runs out) and prohibit public-sector bargaining would put Colorado in the ranks of five other states: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.