Colorado Follows California in the Politics of Marijuana

In 1996, California voters approved the medical use of marijuana (56% in favor). Four years later, Colorado (54% in favor) joined a growing group of states, mostly in the West, to legalize marijuana use for medical treatment.

Colorado now has the second highest number of “patients” (100,000) among states that have legalized it by either ballot elections or legislation. The state also has the fourth highest user rate of people admitting to recreational or medial use (9.24 users, or 370,000, compared to the adult population).

In this year’s election, 40 Colorado cities and counties are considering regulating or banning marijuana dispensaries based on recently passed state regulations. Several committees are asking voters to consider new taxes on marijuana sales.

California is now considering a ballot initiative legalizing marijuana for recreational use. A recent Field Poll shows that 50 percent of California voters favor legalization, dramatically up from 3 percent in 1969 and 30 percent in 1983.

The poll also showed nearly three-quarters of California voters (74%) support the 1996 initiative allowing medical use of marijuana, even though a majority (57%) believe the law has made it easier to obtain marijuana even without a real medical need. A near majority of California voters report smoking marijuana at least once in their lives and 8 percent admit to smoking it in the past year.

In 2006, Colorado voters defeated by 59 percent to 41 percent a constitutional amendment to legalize possession of one ounce or less of marijuana for adults 21 years old and older. But, medical use appears to increase acceptance of recreational marijuana use. And, if California legalizes pot, expect Colorado to follow suit and make another effort at legalization.

See related articles:

California Opinion Index-Marijuana
Denver Post-Ballot bring 40 votes on allowing dispensaries
Denver Post-Major changes at hand for marijuana politics
Denver Post-Pot-legalization measure may boost California Dems 

The Courts Being Pulled Into Politics

The Colorado midterm election will be a contest between the independence of the courts and the growing effort to pull the courts into the country’s current political polarization. Thus far, the courts have mostly escaped the high level of disapproval that has descended upon legislators, governors and the President.

A group of conservative activists has organized a campaign to vote “no” across the board on Colorado judges. The “Clear the Bench” organization has operated mostly without money to promote the idea that Colorado judges, especially on the Supreme Court, should not be retained due to their liberal rulings on tax matters.

Colorado is joined by Kansas and Iowa as a venue where appointed judges with retention elections are facing loud opposition. Although there will likely be an increase in anti-retention votes, the campaign, thus far, has gathered modest attention or little obvious support.

Courts generally are better thought of than other branches of government and, except for mostly rare, controversial cases, seldom generate vocal opposition or noisy demonstrations. A recent Gallup poll on the U.S. Supreme Court shows that its reputation is higher than the President’s or Congress’, but also subject to changing political trends.

 
The Court’s recent high point in approval was earlier in 2009 when Democratic identified voter support surged after the election of President Barack Obama and appointment of Sonia Sotomayor. More recently, of course, Obama has loudly criticized the Court for its decision in the campaign funding case.
 
Its recent low point was in 2004 (42%), shortly after the ruling on condemnation of private land for economic development purposes.
 
Partisanship makes a difference. For example, comparing the 2009 to the 2006 data show dramatic shifts in approval of the Court by Democrats and Republicans. Republicans approved the G.W. Bush Supreme Court, but not the Obama Court; the reverse was true for Democrats.

The Court is considered too liberal by about one-third of the public (32%) and too conservative by one-fifth (19%).  A plurality of Americans believe the Court has an “about right” ideology (43%).  An interesting finding since most observers believe the Court’s recent judicial philosophy has leaned conservative and will remain about the same with the new appointments – Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

A New Definition of Conservative

The Tea Party movement has had much impact on the 2010 midterm election, and one of them has been to re-position the meaning of conservative. Congressman John Salazar, the threatened Democratic congressman from the Third Congressional District, is the clearest example of the danger to Democrats from the new definition.

Salazar, assumed as a Blue Dog, moderate Democrat who voted against cap and trade, he was sufficiently conservative to have the votes of substantial numbers of 3rd CD Republicans. He beat his current opponent by 80,000 when Scott Tipton first ran in 2006. National commentators agreed Salazar, who had more than $1 million in the bank, was not threatened.

But, the Tea Party didn’t care that Salazar only voted with Speaker Nancy Pelosi 92 percent of the time and not 96 percent like his urban and liberal Democratic colleagues. Voting with Pelosi at all made Salazar suspect, and 9 out of 10 voters was more than enough to campaign hard against him. “Salazar, Ciruli said, is ‘clearly a Democratic moderate’ who has been unable to connect with conservatives in his district so far this election cycle and seems to be paying the price.” (Grand Junction Sentinel).

Salazar missed the threat and didn’t’ really start a hard campaign until the end of August when he hired a couple of experienced campaign workers.

While it will be a surprise if Salazar loses, if there is a Republican wave strong enough to capture 70 or 80 seats, it might claim Salazar’s.

Tough Year to Challenge Republican Incumbent

Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett has a difficult challenge in attempting to unseat Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. Garnett was primarily motivated by Suthers joining 20 state’s attorney generals in arguing Obama Care is unconstitutional.

Garnett has tried to find some issues that don’t tend to highlight his liberal Boulder image. Initially, he, along with the Democratic position on health care (a position which, in fact, is opposed by a majority of Colorado voters), highlighted the death penalty, marijuana and gay rights, all polarizing issues, which he holds liberal-oriented positions.

More recently, he focused on conflicts related to Suthers’ fundraising (taking money from controversial financial institutions) and Suthers part in the release of a criminal informant who went on to commit several murders.

Unfortunately for Garnett, he is late in raising the issues and doesn’t have much money to highlight his attacks on television, especially in the onslaught of massive expenditures in the U.S. Senate race.

Also, most of the state’s newspaper editorial pages have the view Suthers has done a good job and deserves re-election.

“I think John Suthers benefits in this particular situation by being a Republican incumbent in a good year for Republicans,” quoted in the Boulder Camera.  The latest national analysis of the race moved Suthers’ race from lean Republican to likely Republican win (Governing.com, Oct. 12, 2010).

Resume Padding Costs Maes’ Republican Support

Rasmussen’s September 12 automated poll shows the first shift in position among Colorado gubernatorial candidates since the August 10 primary.  After more than two weeks of controversy over resume padding, Republican nominee Dan Maes has fallen into third place behind third party candidate Tom Tancredo, who gained several important Republican endorsements in recent days.  Of course, the two conservatives split the Republican vote and continue to lose to Mayor John Hickenlooper by 21 percentage points.

Maes has lost 10 points since the primary.  Tancredo gained seven and Hickenlooper three.  Given the short time left before early voting starts and the predominance in financing by Hickenlooper, the race is effectively over and Hickenlooper is the presumptive governor.  Maes’ damaged reputation may indeed leave him in a weak third place on Election Day.

(Also see Washington Times article)

Buck Maintains Slight Edge

Even after a major onslaught of negative advertising, it appears Ken Buck, Republican nominee for Senate, maintains a slight lead over U.S. Senator Michael Bennet.

In a September 14 Rasmussen poll, Buck has 49 percent to Bennet’s 45 percent. Both candidates have improved their position slightly since the August primary.

Bennet’s problems appear to be a combination of the general dislike of incumbents, especially Democrats, and his own inability to establish a positive image since his January 2009 appointment.  Not even the Democrats’ strong campaign technique may save him.  “‘Overall, in a year that’s looking grim for Democrats.  If anything can save them, or at least diminish the losses,’ it’s going to be an even more sophisticated early-vote operation than the party ran in 2008, when Barack Obama’s campaign did a masterful job of banking ballots ahead of Election Day.” (Associated Press, Sept. 16, 2010)

Colorado’s Fiscal Ballot Issues

Colorado’s three fiscal ballot issues may be generating more interest than the partisan races. A recent survey by Ciruli Associates, reported in the Denver Post, drew criticism from both ballot opponents and proponents. The initiatives were not doing well in late August. Still, opponents have been raising millions to oppose them based on polling and pundits who said they were going to pass.

The Ciruli Associates poll shows two of the fiscal ballot issues (Amendments 60 and 61) have only one-third of Colorado voters supporting them, and Proposition 101 has barely 50 percent. However, large numbers of voters have little or no knowledge of them. The polling test provides a snapshot of the public opinion status of the three initiatives prior to post-Labor Day campaigning.

Previously conducted polls had showed the measures gaining support among voters. But, after several months of campaigning dominated by the opponents, and considerable political news coverage since the August 10 primary, the current position of the three initiatives has changed.

1. A steady diet of news coverage has focused on opposition to the ballot issues by local business, civic, nonprofit and government interests. Newspapers have also offered analysis of the dire impact of the proposals.
2. Supporters have been largely invisible. Their invisibility has raised credibility issues, and newspapers and others have attacked them as stealth proponents. The court case involving Douglas Bruce, who opponents allege is the mastermind behind the initiatives, and his reaction to it has reinforced the perceived eccentricity of the supporters.
3. With the exception of Tom Tancredo, who likely won’t carry much voter-base with him, no high level politician has endorsed the three measures. To the contrary, large numbers of conservative Republican officeholders are opposing the proposals.
4. The primary refocused voter concerns for the general election. Some behavior and positions are now seen as outside the mainstream. These proposals have joined that category. They are political orphans labeled as extreme.

The Ciruli poll of August 23 tested the three initiatives using the way they would be placed on the ballot – that is, toward the end and without any introduction or questions that could bias or prime voter responses and using ballot titles commonly referenced in the media.

As of August 23, results are:
 

 

The campaign opposing the initiatives appears to be working, along with the facts that they’ve found little support, even among traditionally conservative elected officials; their known supporters have been largely invisible and lack credibility; and the voters themselves have recognized that – after enduring some hard-fought primary campaigns – that some things do go too far.