However, this optimism may be premature. Polls show younger voters, including Republicans, are strongly predisposed to support proposals such as the Nov. 8 ballot measure. But voters who haven’t made up their minds may be dismayed upon learning what’s happened in Colorado since voters there approved pot legalization in 2012.

The Colorado experience seems likely to have eventually made its way into the California debate, but the recent chance seating of Assembly Speaker Kevin de León next to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper on a cross-country flight accelerated its entry. De León, a Los Angeles Democrat with statewide ambitions, told the Los Angeles Times last week that the “comprehensive” briefing he had gotten on what happened in Colorado left him so concerned he was unsure how he would vote on Proposition 64.

Colorado report depicts wide range of social ills

A 166-page report assessing how the Rocky Mountain State had been affected by state marijuana policies was released in September 2015. It found sharp increases in driving under the influence of drugs; increases in traffic deaths related to stoned drivers; a spike in marijuana users aged 12 to 17; a sharp increase in marijuana-related emergency room visits; and a huge surge in the number of children under 5 who had been exposed to marijuana in their homes. The document also found evidence that Colorado had become a marijuana exporter, with volume growers taking their crop to other states.

Plainly, what’s happened in Colorado offers rich fodder for anti-Proposition 64 ballot arguments. There is now a legal fight in the works over opponents’ proposed language.

The Colorado report is also a great source of TV attack ads — if the No on Proposition 64 has deep enough pockets to launch such a campaign.

Fearful that California’s legalization of marijuana would set a precedent for the nation, a group leery of Proposition 64 has emerged as its leading critic. Known as the Smart Approaches to Marijuana, it was founded in 2013 by former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy; David Frum, former speech writer for President George W. Bush; and Kevin Sabet, a UC Berkeley alumnus who was the leading opponent of drug legalization or normalization within the Obama administration.

In a recent Los Angeles Times article, Sabet expressed confidence that the anti-Proposition 64 campaign will be well-funded.

But as is often the case with ballot measures in California, one side or the other has a billionaire paying most of the bills. The key advocate behind Proposition 64 is Silicon Valley billionaire Sean Parker, who has already given $9.2 million to qualify the measure and to set up a campaign organization on its behalf. At this point, the No on 64 side has no similar figure.

Battles over credibility loom

What’s more, Sabet’s emergence as a face of the anti-64 campaign could actually galvanize Prop. 64’s supporters.  In some progressive circles, he’s seen as an enemy of balanced, honest debate about drug use in modern America. A 2013 Rolling Stone article depicted him as the “biggest enemy” of pot legalization — a pretend reformer who is a “prohibitionist” at heart.

Dr. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, a New York City physician who has written about marijuana’s potential as a pain reliever in the Clinical Journal of Pain, has charged Sabet with exaggerating marijuana’s addictive qualities and cherry-picking information to mislead journalists on many fronts, such as the alleged correlation between marijuana use and lower IQs. 

Sabet says that legalization supporters have their own credibility gaps, starting with a refusal to acknowledge how detrimental marijuana use is for teenagers and a refusal to admit that marijuana today is far more powerful than it was a generation ago.

California’s Proposition 64 shares its number with the Colorado pot measure approved in 2012. 

“California elections would be radically retooled, with neighborhood polling places replaced by ‘voting centers’ serving much larger swaths and a vast expansion of early voting,” reported the San Jose Mercury News.

Big changes

Spearheaded by Secretary of State Alex Padilla, the overhaul took shape in a bill advanced by two influential lawmakers from the Los Angeles area — state Sens. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, and Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys. As the Sacramento Bee explained, “Senate Bill 450 would have county election officials mail ballots to every registered voter. Voters could then mail them in or drop them off at new kiosks that Padilla said would ideally be open beginning 10 days before elections, eight hours a day.”

“The new legislation incorporates ideas previously included in other bills,” as the Los Angeles Times noted. “A pending bill by Allen also calls for voting centers to be open before Election Day. A measure by Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, would create secure drop-off sites where ballots could be left before Election Day.”

Another effort to increase vote totals also recently gained traction in Sacramento. “Padilla has sponsored another bill that would register to vote everyone who gets a driver’s license in California, unless they opt out,” the Times reported.

Principles and ideology

The push for reform owed its energy to two complementary, yet competing, factors. On the one hand, voter turnout in California has hit extreme lows in recent election cycles, prompting a general outcry about the importance of broad-based civic participation to the government’s legitimacy. On the other, Democrats have made no apologies for their partisan interest in making ballots as easy as possible to cast. Historically, voters who supported Republican candidates tended to turn out more reliably than those who would be more likely to pull the lever for the other party.

Given their dominance, state Democrats had little to worry in rolling out the new proposal. Purple states often experience razor-thin electoral margins that would make even a small shift in turnout potentially significant. In the absence of that pressure, the bill’s sponsors have been able to play up the value of easy voting. “We’ll probably never see another election in California where more voters go to the polls than vote by mail,” said Allen, according to the Bee. “This is about expanding options and convenience for voters.”

Nevertheless, Republicans have been quick to emphasize the bill’s partisan upshot. Former state party chairman Ron Nehring, now vice chairman of San Diego County’s GOP, said state Democrats “have a turnout problem,” U-T San Diego noted. “Republican voter turnout rates are already high,” he said, suggesting that “more competitive elections” could better mobilize voters than fresh legislation.

Other critics have pointed to studies that suggest expanded early voting programs may fail to increase participation, or actually lead to a decrease. Additionally, the prospect of increased costs may strengthen some resistance to Padilla’s plans.

Early results

SB450 drew its inspiration from a new scheme rolled out in Colorado, where Democrats do not enjoy the advantage they do in California. Padilla himself swung through to confirm the state’s measurable growth in turnout. “In the first year Colorado increased voting options, the state saw 319,225 more ballots cast in 2013 compared with 2011,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle, “despite both elections lacking a presidential, gubernatorial or congressional race to drive people to the polls.”

Last year, the Chronicle noted, Colorado cracked the top three of states in voter turnout, while California hit all-time lows during its most recent general and primary elections. Oregon and Washington have also boosted turnout with similar schemes of their own.

In a fight, you go with your strengths. Uber is the social media site whose app connects drivers with riders. Taxis drivers and others don’t like it, and are trying to enact legislation to limit it.

Uber now has responded by using the power of social networking to save its business model and fight two bills in the California Legislature.

The more straightforward of the two bills is Assembly Bill 612, by Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian, D-Sherman Oaks. Fueled by the support of taxi drivers, who have long been required by law to submit to detailed government licensing requirements, Nazarian’s bill would extend similar regulations to Uber drivers. In addition to public permitting, drivers would have to accept background tests, drug tests and fingerprinting.

As supporters of AB612 went on the record, their hostility toward Uber quickly became evident. According to the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles city councilman Paul Koretz described Uber, Lyft and other firms as “well-financed bandit cabs with apps.”

As a result of the double attack, Uber has taken to the court of public opinion, urging users and allies of the service to pressure California state legislators to vote down the bills. In a statement posted on the company’s blog, Uber took aim at both bills.

AB612, the company said, was “a flagrant attempt to stymie innovation and competition by an antiquated industry,” and “an obvious play by the taxicab industry to kill competition and limit consumer choice.”

Insurance regulation

Meanwhile, a more complex piece of legislation made advance. AB2293 is by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord. The primary aim is to draw Uber into the regulatory framework established by insurance law.

AB2293 was described as “a back-room deal by insurance companies and trial attorneys to prematurely force the ridesharing industry to fit their special interests.” It allowed insurance companies, Uber said, “to escape their liability for services they’ve already charged ratepayers,” while helping “trial attorneys work the system to ensure they get the largest payouts possible.”

Specifically targeting state senators sitting on the California Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, Uber pointed readers toward recent regulations in Colorado that avoided the pitfalls of AB612 and AB2293.

In Colorado, SB125, supported by Uber, created a new class of vehicles, “Transportation Network Companies.” Regulations crafted for that class required three things: a multi-state background check including driving records and felony offenses; a quality and safety inspection conducted by certified mechanic; and insurance on every ride, up to $1 million, “from the moment a driver accepts a ride request.”

That final provision was key to resolving the kind of disagreement that has riven California, for reasons that require some background to explain.

A complex controversy

AB2293 was designed to force Uber to abandon its preferred system of insurance coverage. Uber had grown accustomed to dealing with insurance in a somewhat improvised way. When passengers were inside Uber cars, Uber itself supplied so-called “primary” insurance coverage.

According to that system, in the event of an accident, Uber’s coverage was tapped first to cover damages, injuries and repairs. When passengers weren’t in the cars, however, each Uber driver’s personal auto insurance — not Uber’s insurance — became the primary coverage.

That meant, for instance, that if a driver with no passengers hit a pedestrian or crashed into a parked car, that driver would be personally liable through his or her auto insurance policy. Uber would be off the hook completely — with one exception. Uber supplies “contingent liability coverage” if a claim is denied by an insurance company on a driver’s personal coverage, which is primary during the time a driver is available but not carrying a passenger.

For critics, that arrangement seemed like something of a scam. It allowed Uber to cash in on the benefits of its service, while shifting the risks of its business model — like drivers unregulated by law — onto local residents.

Response

The response of Uber and its supporters was simple. Uber, they said, was providing a voluntary, in-demand service that delivers primary insurance when drivers are actually doing the job they were contracted to do. What’s more, Uber wasn’t leaving anyone in the lurch, because drivers freely contracted with Uber to cover off-the-job accidents through their own personal auto insurance.

There was just one catch. A reasonable person could say that Uber drivers weren’t always off the job if they didn’t have passengers in their vehicles. In fact, because Uber operates via a smartphone app, drivers must use their phones to access and interact with the app in order to acquire passengers and communicate with them pre-ride. During those times, drivers are effectively on-duty. And even though they’re not carrying passengers, they are using their smartphones while in the car — possibly while driving.

That’s the circumstance that could open pedestrians and other drivers up to liability that could reasonably be expected to be Uber’s responsibility. Colorado’s state Legislature addressed that situation by requiring insurance from the moment a ride request is accepted — not from the moment a passenger enters a Uber vehicle.

California’s competing bills, however, were not designed to target the legal gray area with as much precision as Colorado’s bill. What’s more, the special interests aligned against Uber in California have done an effective job of poisoning the well by taking such a hostile view of the company (and similar firms).

With no legislative alternative on the horizon for now, a battle in Sacramento has quickly begun to brew.

We’ll soon see whether California, which basically created social media at Facebook, Twitter and other companies including San Francisco-based Uber, itself severely hampers its most glittering and profitable industry. If Uber is harmed, what social media company next would come under fire in its home state?

Correction: The following wording was added after the word “completely”: “with one exception. Uber supplies ‘contingent liability coverage’ if a claim is denied by an insurance company on a driver’s personal coverage, which is primary during the time a driver is available but not carrying a passenger.”

We regret the error.

Also, an objection was made that Uber, Lyft and similar companies are not “social media.” In fact, they are, and not just because Uber is located in San Francisco. According to Oxford Dictionaries, social media are: “Websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.” In March, Shoutlet ran an article, “10 Lessons for Brands from Uber’s Social Marketing.” Bloomberg reported June 10, “Uber Rides Social Media Dominance to $17B Valuation.”

KRDO photo, Hunter Yelton

Only predatory lawyers and statist school bureaucrats could label 6-year old Hunter Yelton a sexual harasser for kissing a female classmate on the hand.

If serial sexual harasser, former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, doesn’t have to register as a sex offender, Huntel Yelton should not be labeled one. Filner was just sentenced to home confinement, even after being charged with felony false imprisonment and two counts of misdemeanor battery, after more than 17 women brought lurid sexual harassment allegations against the former  Mayor and 10-term congressman.

“It was during class, yeah. We were doing reading group and I leaned over and kissed her on the hand. That’s what happened,” Hunter said.

“The focus needs to be on his behavior,” said School Superintendent Robin Goody. “We usually try to get the student to stop, but if it continues, we need to take action and it sometimes rises to the level of suspension,” reported KRDO in Colorado Springs.

Goody said Hunter’s record will remain within the district and that “his behavior fits the school policy description of sexual harassment, which includes unwanted touching,” KRDO in Colorado Springs reported.

“Our main interest in this is having the behavior stop because the story is not just about the student that was disciplined, it is also about the student receiving the unwanted advances,” Gooldy told HLN. “We have to think about both students in the situation.

What is sexual harassment?

Standard “sexual harassment” can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature, according to the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission.

“Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision.”

Predatory adult outrage

What kind of predatory policy enforcer  suggests this kid is a sexual harasser?

School officials, including Superintendent Goody, have messed with the development of a little boy, whose care has been entrusted to them, and turned that into an abuse of that child.

A kiss on the hand by a six-year old school boy — even unwanted — is not sexual harassment.

In another era for example, when I was six, I would have socked Hunter on the arm, and wiped my hand off, if I didn’t want his kisses. And Hunter would be a better man for it.

School officials said regardless of his age, what he did fits their school policy code’s description sexual harassment and say the offense will go on his record.

Witch hunt

I went through many of the news stories and news videos about Hunter’s kiss, and found the witch hunt appears to have been spearheaded by the school’s female principal, Tammy DeWolfe, but she was not named in most of the stories. Superintendent Goody was just the idiot front man.

The girl’s mother, Jade Masters-Ownbey, has also been outspoken about the kissing, and told the Canon City Daily Record on Wednesday that the school district did a “great job” protecting her daughter from repeated harassment from the boy, MSN news reported.

She said she hoped people would not “start bashing the school that is doing a great job protecting my child from what is sexual harassment.”

Ridiculousness or predatory?

School officials say Hunter is a repeat kissing offender and has had behavior problems. “Allegedly, he kissed the same girl on the cheek previously and was disciplined for acting out,” the Washington Examiner reported.

Hunter was suspended once before for kissing the girl and “had other disciplinary problems,” according to the school.

Hunter’s Mom said he has had a few scrapes at school with roughhousing, and has kissed the same girl. Hunter admits he has high energy.

Cañon City Schools Superintendent Robin Gooldy released the following statement to ABC News late yesterday: “The parents of the student and the principal met this morning. One of the outcomes of the conference was to change the category of the disciplinary offense from ‘sexual harassment’ to ‘misconduct’. The student has returned to school.”

And finally, this UPDATE late last night from KRDO: “Today, the school district had a change of heart, and dropped sexual harassment from his record, now calling it misconduct.”

“Sandy Wurtele, a child psychologist, was critical about the district’s decision to punish the boy over the kiss,” KRDO reported. Wurtele is a child clinical psychologist who specializes in child sexual development and the prevention of childhood sexual abuse.

She said tough love in this case could have negative consequences. She said kissing is normal behavior for children of that age, the Gazette reported.

“For most 6-year-old boys, absolutely. That would be a normal behavior,” said Wurtele,

Wurtele said she was surprised to hear the school suspended him.

“That really gives mixed messages, negative messages to the kids,” she said. “This part of development is just as important if not more than their academic subjects.”

Wurtele said children at that age are simply curious about the differences between boys and girls. “I don’t think a 6-year-old would understand what harassment is,” Wurtele told KRDO. “That has some longer-term implications.”

Three years ago California was called a failed state. They were virtually chortling in the conservative venues. The people themselves through the initiative [the Proposition 30 tax increase of $7 billion] actually broke a decade of dysfunction and laid the foundation for a government that works.

One place following his lead is Colorado, where tomorrow voters decide the fate of a $1 billion tax increase — adjusted for population, about the same amount as Prop. 30. Amendment 66 was put on the ballot by Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Brown clone.

As in California, the tax increase is being touted as going to education. But Hickenlooper recently admitted that the money actually could end up not going to classrooms, but to the state pension fund, called PERA, for Public Employees Retirement Association.

Same thing in California. After Prop. 30 passed a year ago and taxes went up $7 billion a year, in December 2012 the California Teachers’ Retirement Association announced it needed $4.5 billion a more a year from the general fund to stay solvent. That money was not included in the fiscal 2013-14 state budget that Brown signed last June. But the money still has to be paid — and is accumulating interest.

I’m just guessing, but I think the tax will lose in Colorado. Although a lot of Californians have escaped our high taxes to move there, ironically they have pushed the Rocky Mountain State to the Left. But this isn’t 2012, when President Obama and the national Democratic machine sent so many more people to the polls. It’s an off-year election, when older, more conservative voters hold more sway because others don’t bother to vote.

Damage

Also, numerous studies show the tax increase would hurt Colorado’s economy. According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation:

There is very good evidence that taxes and economic growth are negatively related, contrary to arguments claiming that higher taxes will not be a detriment to state economies.[14] We recently completed a literature review encompassing 26 academic studies related to economic growth and taxation—23 of those found that higher taxes were associated with lower growth.[15] There may not be a unanimous consensus on the taxes versus economic growth debate, but the claim that taxes in general have “little influence” on state economies is false.[16] Tax increases leave less money in the pockets of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and consumers—money that could be invested back into the Colorado economy, further propelling the state’s economic recovery forward, or that can cover basic expenses for low-income households.

Even proponents of Amendment 66 argue that “[w]hen Colorado’s income growth drops, it’s because there is a national recession.”[17] Though the recession officially ended at the close of 2009,[18] Americans are still feeling the effects. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in early September found that “a majority of Americans (63 percent) say the nation’s economic system is no more secure today than it was before the 2008 market crash.”[19]

And a key factor is that Prop. 30 mainly taxed “millionaires” — which in California lingo means anyone making $250,000 or more a year. But Amendment 66 would tax everybody hard:

Amendment 66 increases taxes on all Colorado taxpayers—including the poor and the middle class. While some taxpayers in higher-income ranges will see a 27 percent increase in maximum rate, even the lowest-income Coloradans will see a tax rate increase of 8 percent. In particular, individuals with incomes below $75,000 would face a 5.0 percent rate, rather than the current 4.63 percent (an 8 percent increase).

The Air Force Academy might be located in Colorado Springs, but it’s unlikely Coloradans will follow Gov. Moonboom in sending tax rates into the stratosphere.

Now heroic Coloradans just recalled two anti-gun state legislators:

An epic national debate over gun rights in Colorado on Tuesday saw two Democratic state senators ousted for their support for stricter laws, a “ready, aim, fired” message intended to stop other politicians for pushing for firearms restrictions. Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron will be replaced in office with Republican candidates who petitioned onto the recall ballot.

Party insiders always said Giron's race was the harder one. Although her district is heavily Democratic, Pueblo is a blue-collar union town. Morse's district included Manitou Springs and a portion of Colorado Springs — and more liberals.

The turn of events made Morse and Giron the first Colorado state lawmakers to be recalled. Former Colorado Springs councilman Bernie Herpin will take Morse's seat in the Senate, while Pueblo will be represented by former Deputy Police Chief George Rivera.

It's unclear when the city of Pueblo was last represented in the Senate by a Republican.

“Coloradans … sent a clear message that politicians who blatantly ignore their constituents will be held accountable,” said Dustin Zvonek, state director of Americans for Prosperity. “Perhaps this will serve as a lesson that one-party rule in Denver doesn't give the majority license to take things to extremes or run roughshod over the values and rights of Coloradans who just happen, for the moment, to be in the minority.”

“Tonight is a victory for the people of the state of Colorado, who have been subject to the overreach of a Democrat agenda on guns, taxes and accountability to the people,” said Tim Knight, Founder of the Basic Freedom Defense Fund and the “father” of the recalls. “Since day one, they said it couldn't be done. Tonight, this is a victory for the people of Colorado, and we share this victory with them.”

There's a lesson here for California Republicans, who like their brethren and sistren in Colorado have had a hard time lately: Back Second Amendment gun rights and you'll win.

My suggestion for the 2014 CA GOP: Adopt a 100 percent pro-gun platform. This should include:

1. Passing a state initiative allowing conceal-carry permits to all Californians who are 21 or older and don't have a felony conviction.

2. Repealing California's restrictions on so-called “assault weapons” ownership.

3. Repealing whatever anti-gun laws the California Legislature passes, and Gov. Jerry Brown signs, this year.

 Colorado has shown the way back to freedom.

By Katy Grimes

The historic recall election underway in Colorado of Senate President John Morse is shaping up to be a template for other grassroots groups unhappy with elected officials. Morse is facing a recall for his support of controversial gun control laws, including expanded background checks and limits on the ammunition gun magazines can hold.

This is the first recall election of a Colorado legislator in the state’s history. Morse became the subject of the recall because of a bill he authored holding owners of assault weapons liable for damages caused by their guns, along with other anti-gun bills. While he eventually backed off on the liability bill, voters’ outrage morphed into a recall.

Don’t mess with the Second Amendment

What started as a group of Second Amendment supporters unhappy with a top Colorado Democratic lawmaker over the passage of strict gun control legislation has grown into a full-fledged, serious-as-a-bullet recall election.

Helping out the recall supporters, the Basic Freedom Defense Fund formed a committee for recalling Morse, representing state organizations, local businesses and many volunteers.

“He broke his oath to protect and uphold the Constitution by championing citizen disarmament legislation including a Draconian standard capacity magazine ban and a ‘universal background check’ bill,” BFDF said on its website. “Both of these are unenforceable without registration and even 55 of Colorado’s 62 sheriffs have filed a lawsuit to have these overturned.”

The group recently turned in double the signatures needed to force the recall election of Democratic state Senate President John Morse.

Who is helping Morse?

America Votes, a non-profit campaign group created to push progressive policies and candidates, of which New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a major backer, released a video in support of Morse recently. But a campaign finance report filed for the Morse supporters, “A Whole Lot of People for John Morse,” shows that America Votes is  funded by  every major left-wing special interest group in the country.

In addition to Bloomberg, America Votes supporters includes the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the SEIU, Emily’s list, Planned Parenthood, the National Education Association, United Food and Commercial Workers, Sierra Club, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Progressive Majority, and many more.

I talked with Grassroots Radio Colorado host Ken Clark about the recall. Clark has been working diligently on the campaign to oust Morse, and told me they gathered more than 16,000 signatures, which await verification by the secretary of state’s office. Clark said if 7,200 of them are valid signatures from voters in Morse’s district, a recall election will take place.

However, Clark said they are up against a powerful political money machine, backed by Bloomberg. “It’s a national agenda, and Colorado is ground zero,” Clark said. The agenda plan is to kill off the Red States one by one, according to Clark. All told, these progressive-liberal groups have spent a great deal of money in Colorado, and managed to turn a solid red state into a blue state in only a few years, he said.

How a red state turned blue

In 2008, Colorado Democrats comprised 31.2 percent of registered voters; Republicans 34.14 percent, and Independents 34.19 percent, according to Adam Schrager and Rob Witwer, authors of “The Blueprint: How the Democrats won Colorado.”

According to the book, “Yet, in 2004 and 2006, the Dems took out the Republican governor, turned both state houses blue, as well as a U.S. Senate seat, and two U.S. House seats.”

Continuing with the plan, the Colorado Legislature recently passed bills to vote by mail, as well as allowing same-day voter registration. According to Clark, both bills were actively supported by America Votes, which claims to “help eliminate some of the confusion for voters at the polls.”

The bills also eliminate the category of “inactive” voters, which are regularly purged from the state voter rolls. But the most chilling aspect of the new law is citizen watchers of the elections will now be excluded by these new laws. Ballots will be handled exclusively by Colorado’s county clerks behind closed doors, out of the public eye.

CA going in the wrong direction

These are tactics used in California as well. As some states have enacted voter ID laws,  California has headed in the opposite direction. In September, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a same-day voter registration bill, and an online voter registration bill. But many say online and same-day voter registration is a Democrat election guarantee, as it just makes it easier to commit voter fraud.

“Last November, Colorado had almost 10,000 attempted fraudulent votes,” a Washington Times story recently reported. “Half of those were late registrants. Of the other 5,000 ineligible voters, 700 had attempted to vote twice, 2,600 were not residents of the state, and 50 were felons not eligible to vote.”

This is reminiscent of the recent Senate District 16 Special Election between Republican Andy Vidak, and Democrat Leticia Valdez, which I recently wrote about. The immediate post-election results showed Vidak received 51.9 percent of the vote to Valdez’s 43 percent. But three days later, 6,500 provisional ballots appeared, taking Vidak’s share down below the needed 50 percent margin to avoid a runoff.

A provisional ballot is used when there are questions about a given voter’s identity, address or eligibility; or the voter’s ballot has already been recorded.

A Whole Lot of People For John Morse

The groups supporting A Whole Lot of People For John Morse all claim to be nonprofits. Yet Morse’s anti-recall campaign received huge cash infusions from three groups: Sixteen Thirty Fund, Citizens for Integrity, and Mainstream Colorado.

All three groups have ties to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization, now quite influential in Colorado politics, according to Clark.

“Yet isn’t it ironic there were 25 shootings in New York City last weekend, a gun-free zone,” Clark said.

Clark said there are other states in the crosshairs of America Votes and the Bloomberg groups, and he warned, “Texas is next.”