Republicans Win CO Senate

[Rucker61]

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/...#disqus_thread

[O2HeN2]

If we had lost the senate, the year of lost rights would have looked like only a warm-up.

Gun owners would have felt the full wrath of the Dem's revenge for the recalls.

Unfortunately I think we're only put it off for an election cycle or two.

O2

[Great-Kazoo]

If we had lost the senate, the year of lost rights would have looked like only a warm-up.

Gun owners would have felt the full wrath of the Dem's revenge for the recalls.

Unfortunately I think we're only put it off for an election cycle or two.

O2

They will be lined up at the polls 1-2 days prior to election day. Like it was a Chik-Fil-A grand opening.

[SenHolbert]

At least now, we can stop them.

Following the 2013 general session, there was A LOT of frustration expressed as to why we Republicans (the Minority) didn't do more to stop the anti-gun bills. Those frustrations often boiled down to 'why didn't Republicans shut down the process?'

The answer is simple: in Colorado, the Minority has no ability to 'shut down the process.' That is not possible under the COLORADO state Constitution. Apparently, the Constitution of the State of Texas may provide some provision for the Minority to shut down the process. A few years ago, eleven Democrat state Senators from Texas gained much media attention when they left Texas, went to New Mexico, and refused to return until they got what they wanted. OK, if that story is accurate, then we know one thing: the Texas Constitution and the Colorado Constitution are different.

In Colorado, the critical "33, 18 & 1" refers to the rule of Simple Majority. There are 65 seats in the state House. A simple majority is 33 of those 65 seats. There are 35 seats in the state Senate. A simple majority is 18 of those 35 seats. There is one Governor. Thus, if 33 or more members of the House agree, 18 or more of the Senate agree, and the one Governor agrees, then a bill passes into law… and there is NO WAY for those in the House or Senate who disagree (32 or fewer in the House and/or 17 or fewer in the Senate) to stop the bill. If a minority of members were to leave the state or refuse to vote, they (we) would be counted "Absent" or "Excused" and the process would continue because, under the Colorado Constitution, there is no provision for a minority of members to shut down the process. Quorum requirements to start business on any legislative day are also 33 & 18.

With this one majority, we Republicans now have a way to stop bad bills and pass good bills. Any eighteen or more members of the Senate *could* shut down the process, but there would be no need for a majority of members to shut themselves down.

As we move toward the 2015 general session, please keep-in-mind and share with others the reality that our political opposition is watching and they are anxious to know what bills will be run. What will be the agenda for 2015? Who will run which bills? How can they rally their resources to prepare for the upcoming legislative battles? They watch social media and even issue-oriented sites like this one. Thus, it would be really not smart for us to discuss such things in a forum setting. Bills can be introduced starting Wednesday, January 7, 2015. Until then, please encourage keeping our playbook to ourselves. The other team doesn't need our help. We now have 18, they have 34 & 1.

[Dave]

At least now, we can stop them.

Following the 2013 general session, there was A LOT of frustration expressed as to why we Republicans (the Minority) didn't do more to stop the anti-gun bills. Those frustrations often boiled down to 'why didn't Republicans shut down the process?'

The answer is simple: in Colorado, the Minority has no ability to 'shut down the process.' That is not possible under the COLORADO state Constitution. Apparently, the Constitution of the State of Texas may provide some provision for the Minority to shut down the process. A few years ago, eleven Democrat state Senators from Texas gained much media attention when they left Texas, went to New Mexico, and refused to return until they got what they wanted. OK, if that story is accurate, then we know one thing: the Texas Constitution and the Colorado Constitution are different.

In Colorado, the critical "33, 18 & 1" refers to the rule of Simple Majority. There are 65 seats in the state House. A simple majority is 33 of those 65 seats. There are 35 seats in the state Senate. A simple majority is 18 of those 35 seats. There is one Governor. Thus, if 33 or more members of the House agree, 18 or more of the Senate agree, and the one Governor agrees, then a bill passes into law… and there is NO WAY for those in the House or Senate who disagree (32 or fewer in the House and/or 17 or fewer in the Senate) to stop the bill. If a minority of members were to leave the state or refuse to vote, they (we) would be counted "Absent" or "Excused" and the process would continue because, under the Colorado Constitution, there is no provision for a minority of members to shut down the process. Quorum requirements to start business on any legislative day are also 33 & 18.

With this one majority, we Republicans now have a way to stop bad bills and pass good bills. Any eighteen or more members of the Senate *could* shut down the process, but there would be no need for a majority of members to shut themselves down.

As we move toward the 2015 general session, please keep-in-mind and share with others the reality that our political opposition is watching and they are anxious to know what bills will be run. What will be the agenda for 2015? Who will run which bills? How can they rally their resources to prepare for the upcoming legislative battles? They watch social media and even issue-oriented sites like this one. Thus, it would be really not smart for us to discuss such things in a forum setting. Bills can be introduced starting Wednesday, January 7, 2015. Until then, please encourage keeping our playbook to ourselves. The other team doesn't need our help. We now have 18, they have 34 & 1.

And now I know.... and knowing is half the battle!

Too bad we have to settle on just not having more bad legislation rammed through. This was the first year since I have been eligible to vote that I went straight Republican. I usually vote a mix of R and L depending on what my research on candidates yielded, but this year I wasn't so much voting for R ideals (I differ on a few of theirs) as I was voting against Obama and the CO D lead gov't.

[EvilRhino]

Does the majority get to pick who is on what committee? IIRC, Irene Aguilar was the head of the committee during the bill to repeal last year and shot it down in committee. After admitting that she thought the 400,000 number was the number of private party gun sales and the true number came out to be about 13k, she still went on record to say "if it keeps 1 gun out of a bad guy's hands..."

And she just easily got re-elected.

[brutal]

At least now, we can stop them.

Following the 2013 general session, there was A LOT of frustration expressed as to why we Republicans (the Minority) didn't do more to stop the anti-gun bills. Those frustrations often boiled down to 'why didn't Republicans shut down the process?'

The answer is simple: in Colorado, the Minority has no ability to 'shut down the process.' That is not possible under the COLORADO state Constitution. Apparently, the Constitution of the State of Texas may provide some provision for the Minority to shut down the process. A few years ago, eleven Democrat state Senators from Texas gained much media attention when they left Texas, went to New Mexico, and refused to return until they got what they wanted. OK, if that story is accurate, then we know one thing: the Texas Constitution and the Colorado Constitution are different.

In Colorado, the critical "33, 18 & 1" refers to the rule of Simple Majority. There are 65 seats in the state House. A simple majority is 33 of those 65 seats. There are 35 seats in the state Senate. A simple majority is 18 of those 35 seats. There is one Governor. Thus, if 33 or more members of the House agree, 18 or more of the Senate agree, and the one Governor agrees, then a bill passes into law… and there is NO WAY for those in the House or Senate who disagree (32 or fewer in the House and/or 17 or fewer in the Senate) to stop the bill. If a minority of members were to leave the state or refuse to vote, they (we) would be counted "Absent" or "Excused" and the process would continue because, under the Colorado Constitution, there is no provision for a minority of members to shut down the process. Quorum requirements to start business on any legislative day are also 33 & 18.

With this one majority, we Republicans now have a way to stop bad bills and pass good bills. Any eighteen or more members of the Senate *could* shut down the process, but there would be no need for a majority of members to shut themselves down.

As we move toward the 2015 general session, please keep-in-mind and share with others the reality that our political opposition is watching and they are anxious to know what bills will be run. What will be the agenda for 2015? Who will run which bills? How can they rally their resources to prepare for the upcoming legislative battles? They watch social media and even issue-oriented sites like this one. Thus, it would be really not smart for us to discuss such things in a forum setting. Bills can be introduced starting Wednesday, January 7, 2015. Until then, please encourage keeping our playbook to ourselves. The other team doesn't need our help. We now have 18, they have 34 & 1.

Chris,

Help me out, I'm a little slow on the process. How are we going to "pass good bills" through the Legislature with only the Senate majority and not the House or Governor?

Thanks so much for your tremendous efforts.

[SenHolbert]

House Dems have a 34-31 majority. 33 votes are required to pass a bill through the House. More than one member of the House who will be there in 2015 voted "No" on the 2013 citizen-control bills. After losing two recalls and one resignation in 2013, and now losing two incumbents in the Senate and three incumbent members of the House, 2015 will offer Dems a third chance to get it right. Is it a sure thing? No. Will citizens who are pro-2A be heard in the Senate? Damn straight. Has Hick contradicted himself and indicated that "if we had known how controversial" the citizen-control bills would be, that maybe they would have done things differently? Yes.

Again, a sure thing? No. Better odds? Yes. An opportunity to correct one or more wrongs? Definitely.

[Great-Kazoo]

House Dems have a 34-31 majority. 33 votes are required to pass a bill through the House. More than one member of the House who will be there in 2015 voted "No" on the 2013 citizen-control bills. After losing two recalls and one resignation in 2013, and now losing two incumbents in the Senate and three incumbent members of the House, 2015 will offer Dems a third chance to get it right. Is it a sure thing? No. Will citizens who are pro-2A be heard in the Senate? Damn straight. Has Hick contradicted himself and indicated that "if we had known how controversial" the citizen-control bills would be, that maybe they would have done things differently? Yes.

Again, a sure thing? No. Better odds? Yes. An opportunity to correct one or more wrongs? Definitely.

Your insight is very much appreciated. Big question how much money Bloomberg might be willing to invest here, for more stringent gun laws. OR might he and that grassroots group go where the odds are favored like Huston, etc. Then use those wins as the platform of EVERYWHERE our ballot was voted on, won.?

I know you or others don't have a crystal ball, unfortunately. The D's are already regrouping and will focus in areas (CO) they lost by moderate margins.

[brutal]

House Dems have a 34-31 majority. 33 votes are required to pass a bill through the House. More than one member of the House who will be there in 2015 voted "No" on the 2013 citizen-control bills. After losing two recalls and one resignation in 2013, and now losing two incumbents in the Senate and three incumbent members of the House, 2015 will offer Dems a third chance to get it right. Is it a sure thing? No. Will citizens who are pro-2A be heard in the Senate? Damn straight. Has Hick contradicted himself and indicated that "if we had known how controversial" the citizen-control bills would be, that maybe they would have done things differently? Yes.

Again, a sure thing? No. Better odds? Yes. An opportunity to correct one or more wrongs? Definitely.

Thanks for clearing that up and giving us hope.