Steve Pomerance

The nasty postcards have exposed a gaping hole in Boulder’s election laws. I’m referring to the nasty anti-Yates postcards sent out by the Working Families Party promoting Nicole Speer or Aaron Brockett as Boulder’s first directly elected mayor. When the first card showed up over two weeks ago, ten citizens (including me) immediately wrote to Nicole Speer and Aaron Brockett, formally requesting “that you IMMEDIATELY disclaim any involvement and IMMEDIATELY repudiate this organization’s attempts to influence Boulder’s elections.” Nicole was silent. Aaron posted something on social media. The city council (who were copied on this initial communication) did not take a stand against these ugly, partisan attacks. And WFP’s campaign continued — with a second large postcard, web ads, and “polling” phone calls — and very likely shifted the close outcome in Brockett’s favor. Both former council member Crystal Gray and I immediately filed formal complaints with the City over WFP’s failure ...

This election seemed pretty calm until this last weekend when two postcards showed up from some entities called the “Working Families Power National PAC” and “Colorado Working Families Power.” The larger card, from the National PAC, beat up on Bob Yates, who is running for mayor, and instead advocated the election of Nicole Speer or Aaron Brockett. The other card, from Colorado WFP, advocated for Speer. No doubt most of you have seen the larger card, so I won’t go into its offensive and partisan content. (By the way, WFP National PAC claims to be “progressive,” whatever that now means.) As of Wednesday morning, only the WFP National PAC had filed the required campaign reports with the City. That the CWFP group appears to have not done this apparently puts them in violation of the City’s election laws. However, from further research, it appears that both are actually the “Working Families Party.” Additionally, the PAC group filed as an “Independent Expenditure Only,” which is apparent...

The conversation we are going to have on April 20 regarding Governor Polis’s housing bill, SB23-213, has, to a considerable extent, been preempted by the position of the City Council’s Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, and likely to be supported by a majority of the members of Council. The Committee has adopted a position of “Support, while requesting amendments.” The scope of that position is unclear. Staff has proposed a number of amendments to improve the bill and make it more adaptable to the particular interests of the City of Boulder. What is not clear is what happens if the Council majority’s proposed amendments are not adopted. Are we expressing support for the bill no matter what its final provisions are, or will we oppose the bill if those amendments are not enacted?  I know that this legislation is near and dear to Governor Polis, but I suggest that the interests of the City of Boulder – which should be the   exclusive  interests of this Council – outweigh t...

Clear information has been lacking about the rules on the city’s petitioning process. Here are the basics from state and local law: The 1970 home rule amendment to the Colorado Constitution Article XX added Section 9. This grants citizens the power to amend home rule city charters, and directs the Legislature to set the rules for such charter amendments. It also added Section 8, which states that this amendment supersedes any parts of the constitution that are not consistent with it. In 1971, the Legislature passed its Home Rule Act to implement Article XX’s amendments. Its legislative declaration in C.R.S. 31-2-202 states that it supersedes all other provisions. In C.R.S. 31-2-210, the act set the signature percentages and timing rules — 5 percent of registered voters for “regular” (council) elections, 10 percent for “special” (all other) elections, 90 days to collect and submit signatures, and signature submission to be done by 90 days before the election. Boulder Charter Sec...

In 1970, Coloradans passed the “Colorado Home Rule for Local Governments Amendment,” adding Article XX, Section 9, to our state constitution. It states in part: “The general assembly shall provide by statute procedures under which the registered electors of any proposed or existing city and county, city, or town may adopt, amend, and repeal a municipal home rule charter.” Then in 1971, the Legislature implemented this section by adopting C.R.S. 31-2. It declared in C.R.S. 31-2-202: “the policies and procedures contained in this part 2 are enacted to implement section 9 of article XX of the state constitution, adopted at the 1970 general election” and that “this part 2 shall supersede” prior parts of the state constitution. C.R.S. 31-2-210 allows 90 days for circulating and submitting charter amendment petitions, requires submission by 90 days before the election, and requires signing by 5 percent of registered electors for “regular elections” – when council members are elected and...