Effort to transform Colorado politics by 2030 takes shape
The question sounds innocuous: "When you think about having more courageous and representative politics in Colorado, what does that mean to you?"
Yes, but: It's the precursor to much more. The organizers who asked the question just finished a statewide listening tour called Courageous Colorado, the start to an overhaul of the state's elections and campaigns to make them less partisan.
The goal is to implement policy changes at the local or state level by 2030.
The big picture: The effort is the outgrowth of Proposition 131, a failed 2024 campaign to institute all-candidate primaries and ranked choice voting.
Unite for America, a national democracy reform group that pushed Prop. 131, paid in part for the tour, Axios Denver has learned.
The League of Women Voters, CiviCO and Veterans for All Voters, all civic engagement groups, are co-hosts.
Between the lines: A similar statewide listening tour ahead of the 2016 election led to a ballot initiative to roll back the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, known as TABOR.
What they are saying: "We have to also transform the way campaigns are run," Landon Mascareñaz, the lead organizer of the tour told us, lamenting their "divisive nature."
State of play: Courageous Colorado organized 20 town halls across the state through late May to spur the conversation and generate a 2030 agenda.
At each stop, attendees — ranging from a handful to more than a dozen — discussed and ranked their support for 23 pre-generated ideas to boost "courage and representation."
The list included overhauls of campaign finance, civic education, a citizens' assembly, minor party ballot access, term limits and new methods of voting.
The top ideas from the tour, Mascareñaz says, were campaign finance reform, better civic education, open political primaries, ranked choice voting and term limits for local leaders.
Inside the room: The stop in Boulder drew 10 people. Mascareñaz started the hourlong conversation by outlining how representation is short-cut in Colorado because of noncompetitive seats in the state Legislature and Congress — a parallel talking point from the Prop. 131 campaign.
Attendees expressed cynicism about the ability to change the status quo, but Mascareñaz urged them to stay engaged. "We didn't get into this challenge overnight. We're not going to solve it in one listening session," he said.
What's next: This week, organizers are hosting a retreat in Leadville for advocacy groups to evaluate the data from the listening tour and consider a path forward.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
3 days ago
- Buzz Feed
Photos Of The White House Rose Garden Through History
Construction is well underway on President Trump's project to pave over the grass in the White House Rose Garden. The president said the decision was made to pave over the lawn because the grass was often too wet, and it was difficult for women to walk around in heels when events were held there. This isn't the first time the Rose Garden has been revamped, though — this is just one of the most drastic changes that's been done. Since its creation in 1913 under first lady Ellen Axson Wilson, the Rose Garden has been updated a few times over the years, including the addition of flower beds, crabapple trees, and a border walk. Here are 37 pictures of what the Rose Garden (and its grass) have looked like during events throughout history: Before there was a Rose Garden, there was a West Colonial Garden. This image is from sometime around 1908. The White House Rose Garden was originally commissioned by first lady Ellen Axson Wilson and designed by George E. Burnap. It was planted on the south side of the White House in 1913. It looked just about the same in 1917, with manicured hedges and grass. In 1951, President Harry Truman presented a trophy for the World's Outstanding Aviator to Col. David C. Schilling in the Rose Garden. President Dwight D. Eisenhower spoke with the League of Women Voters in the Rose Garden in 1957. President John F. Kennedy welcomed astronaut Alan Shepard to the White House for a reception in the Rose Garden in 1961, three days after Shepard became the first American in space. After being entertained in gorgeous gardens on a visit to Europe, President Kennedy was inspired to have the Rose Garden redesigned and tasked horticulturalist Rachel Lambert Mellon with the job. The construction process was underway here in 1962. This update included new plants, trees, and a redesigned staircase. The work was completed that same year. Here's John F. Kennedy, Jr. playing in the newly finished Rose Garden in 1963. These are the Rose Garden chrysanthemums blooming in 1967. During the Vietnam War protests in 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson had a discussion in the Rose Garden with Vice President Hubert Humphrey and other cabinet members. First lady Lady Bird Johnson played with her grandson, Patrick Lyndon Nugent, alongside her daughter, Lynda Bird Robb (Patrick's aunt), during Easter in the Rose Garden in 1968. Richard Nixon showed off his Irish Setter, King Timahoe, to the media in 1969. (His future VP and successor, Gerald Ford, is in the background.) In 1971, President Nixon's daughter, Tricia Nixon Cox, married her husband, Edward Finch Cox, in the Rose Garden. President Nixon hosted members of the touring Chinese table tennis team in 1972. In 1975, Brazilian soccer star Pelé visited the White House and kicked a ball around with President Gerald Ford. President Jimmy Carter chatted with Vice President Walter Mondale in the Rose Garden in 1978. In 1987, Pelé returned to the White House and kicked a ball around with a children's soccer team and President Ronald Reagan. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher walked (and maybe jogged a bit) alongside President Reagan and his dog, Lucky, in 1988. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush held a press conference with Russian President Boris Yeltsin in the Rose Garden. President Bill Clinton spoke next to Ruth Bader Ginsburg after her Senate confirmation as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden in 1994. In 1998, President Clinton played with his dog, Buddy. In 2006, first lady Laura Bush walked her two dogs, Miss Beazley and Barney, in the Rose Garden. President George W. Bush danced in a Rose Garden event with members of the Kankouran West African Dance Company in 2007. President Obama spoke alongside former presidents Bush and Clinton about relief for Haiti after a devastating earthquake in 2010. Later in 2010, President Obama tossed a ball for his dog, Bo. President Obama pardoned a turkey named Tot on Thanksgiving in 2016. Ivanka Trump spun her daughter, Arabella Rose Kushner, around in the grass during a congressional picnic in 2017. First lady Melania Trump made changes to the Rose Garden in 2020, removing many of the trees and flowers, as well as adding a paved border around the grass. The layout of the Rose Garden was changed in the process, and it no longer follows Mellon's original 1962 design. Later that year, Vice President Mike Pence listened in to one of President Trump's updates on Operation Warp Speed (the COVID vaccine program). In 2021, President Joe Biden pardoned this turkey named Peanut Butter in the Rose Garden. President Biden and first lady Jill Biden sat with the 2023 Teacher of the Year during an event to honor educators. President Trump held a signing ceremony for the TAKE IT DOWN Act in May 2025. Just a couple of weeks ago, construction began on paving over the grass. Construction workers dug up the entire lawn. The Rose Garden now currently has paving in progress. And finally, one slightly wider image of the alterations, taken earlier this week. What do you think about the changes President Trump is making? Do you think this is a necessary upgrade to the Rose Garden? Or do you think the grass should have been left as-is? Let us know in the comments.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Republicans admit gerrymandering. SC Supreme Court weighs if that's allowed
Two years ago the U.S. Supreme Court upheld South Carolina's new congressional maps, rejecting claims that they were racially biased. Now, the state Supreme Court will weigh whether those maps, drawn explicitly to weaken the Democratic vote, violate the state Constitution because they're too partisan. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with South Carolina's Republican leadership, who argued that the maps drawn in 2021 were not intended to dilute Black votes, merely Democratic ones. But a new suit brought by the League of Women Voters, a national nonpartisan organization, argues that the state constitution should prevent maps from being drawn in an overtly partisan manner. 'You cannot intentionally dilute a group of voters in a way to affect their electoral opportunities,' said Allen Chaney, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, who represented the League. Their argument is based on a clause in the state constitution that guarantees every South Carolina resident 'an equal right to elect officers and be elected to fill public office.' Courts in New Mexico, Kentucky and Pennsylvania have ruled that similar language in their state constitutions prohibit overly-partisan gerrymandering. After a suit was brought by the NAACP against the redrawn maps in 2021, state Republicans denied allegations that they made the district more Republican by moving Black voters out of the district. Instead, the Republicans admitted, they targeted Democrats. Will Roberts, the lead cartographer for the Senate Republicans, testified he was 'one hundred percent' focused on creating a more favorable Republican district when drawing the map in 2021. Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey testified at trial that partisanship was 'one of the most important factors.' The 2021 district maps were the first ones drawn after the U.S. Supreme Court ended a civil rights-era requirement that South Carolina submit congressional maps for federal pre-approval. While gerrymandering, or the redrawing of electoral boundaries to favor one party or the other, is a built-in part of the country's political system, the 2021 maps go too far, lawyers from the ACLU argued. In essence, they have deprived voters in a competitive district the opportunity to have a meaningful impact in an election. The ACLU wants the Supreme Court to halt congressional elections until the state's General Assembly draws maps that are more fair. The next congressional elections are scheduled for November 2026. 'I don't think the court can reward lawmakers here for figuring out how to accomplish the same effect with sophisticated and nuanced means,' Chaney told the Supreme Court. The lawsuits have focused on the the 1st Congressional District in the Lowcountry, where the impact of gerrymandering is most clearly seen. The district was redrawn to shift people who voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 into the neighboring 6th Congressional District, a safe Democratic seat occupied by U.S. Rep. James Clyburn of Columbia. The 1st Congressional District seat is currently held by Nancy Mace, a Republican who won her 2020 race by just 1% of the vote. After the congressional map was redrawn, Mace won reelection in 2022 by roughly 14% and again in 2024 by almost 17%. The redrawn plan moved 53,000 people from the 6th Congressional District into the 1st. About 140,000 people, including more than 30,000 Black voters, were then moved from the 1st Congressional District into the 6th, which runs from North Charleston to Richland County, according to court filings. The process, known as packing, concentrates voters of one party in a district, lessening the impact they can have elsewhere. The realities of 'political geography' mean that not every voter can expect to see their chosen candidate be elected, Chaney said. But there's a big difference between being a Democratic voter in Oconee County, where more than 75% of voters cast ballots for Donald Trump in 2024, and a Democratic voter in politically diverse Charleston County. Lawyers for the state's Republican leadership, who redrew the maps, offered a range of arguments to defend their position. Grayson Lambert, representing Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, argued that the original drafters of the state constitution had never intended for it to prevent partisan gerrymandering. A review of contemporary records, like newspapers, from the time the constitution was drafted 130 years ago found no discussion of partisan gerrymandering. 'It would be inconceivable that no one put forward that argument' if that's what the constitution intended to prevent, Lambert argued. John Moore, a lawyer for Senate President Thomas Alexander, R-Oconee, argued that the constitution simply 'protects every voter's right to cast a ballot and have that ballot counted.' It is impossible to remove politics from redistricting, Moore said. He argued that the electoral process provided sufficient checks and balances to reapportionment without the court having to act as a referee. If voters didn't like how politicians were redrawing district maps, they should vote them out, Moore argued. 'The court should decline to wade into this political thicket,' Moore said. Andrew Matthias, representing House Speaker Murrell Smith, appeared to take it a step further, telling Chief Justice John Kittredge that the court actually had no authority to review the General Assembly's redistricting plans. While it is unclear whether justices will accept that they have no role to play, they appeared wary of wading into the challenges of redistricting without a clear standard to follow. 'There has to be a guideline. It can't just be what my gut says, or your gut or someone else's,' said Chief Justice John Kittredge. Urging the judge's to take up the issue, Chaney said that the right for a citizen of South Carolina to have their vote matter was not a partisan issue. 'We would be here making the argument if it was Democratic gerrymandering.'
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Oral arguments start in South Carolina Supreme Court case over 2022 congressional map
Oral arguments in a legal dispute over the 2022 congressional map commenced in the South Carolina Supreme Court on June 24. Allen Chaney, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, stood before a five-judge panel in the Columbia courthouse on behalf of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina in a 2024 lawsuit. The League of Women Voters is accusing the state of reworking district lines to give Republican candidates an advantage with the congressional redistricting plan, which Gov. Henry McMaster signed on Jan. 26, 2022. More: New lawsuit claims SC lawmakers 'violated' state constitution after redrawing maps "Elections in the first congressional district are neither free nor open," Chaney said. There are three respondents: State Senate President Thomas Alexander, State House Speaker Murrell Smith and South Carolina Election Commission's Executive Director, Howard Knapp. Plaintiffs argue that lawmakers moved thousands of Democratic voters out of the competitive Congressional District 1 and into blue-leaning District 6 to give Republicans an advantage. "The congressional redistricting plan was extremely effective at entrenching Republican advantage in CD1," the lawsuit stated. According to election results from SC Votes, the Democratic candidate won CD1 by 1.38% in 2018. They lost by 13.92% in 2022. The Democratic majority in CD6 also dropped in the same period from a 41.9% to 24.19%. District/Party Affiliations 2018 Election Results 2020 Election Results 2022 Election Results CD1 Democratic Candidate 145,455 (50.60%) 210,627 (49.31%) 115,796 (42.47%) CD1 Republican Candidate 141,473 (49.22%) 216,042 (50.58%) 153,757 (56.39%) CD6 Democratic Candidate 144,765 (70.13%) 197,477 (68.18%) 130,923 (62.04%) CD6 Republican Candidate 58,282 (28.23%) 89,258 (30.82%) 79,879 (37.85%) Plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit the 2022 congressional map strongly impacted election results that year, as seen with the Republican candidate's more significant win margin after the new lines were established. "Today, we've asked the Court to restore the State Constitution's promise of free and fair elections where every South Carolinian's vote counts the same," Adriel L. Cepeda Derieux, the deputy director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. "South Carolina's constitution protects voters from having their voices manipulated for partisan gain." League of Women Voters of South Carolina says the state's current congressional map violates several parts of South Carolina's constitution, including the Free and Open Elections Clause and the Equal Protections Clause. "There is direct evidence of intent and clear evidence of effect," Chaney said. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled in a separate lawsuit (South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Alexander) that South Carolina's legislature racially gerrymandered CD1 by transitioning 30,000 Black Charleston County residents out of CD1 and into CD6. The state appealed that decision, moving the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided in May 2024 that the redistricting was with partisan intent, not on the basis of race. The case was thrown out based on a previous ruling that stated federal courts should not consider partisan gerrymandering cases, and the 2022 congressional map stayed in place. Lynn Teague, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina vice president for issues and action, said this lawsuit is different from the previous one, which alleged racial gerrymandering. "The U.S. Supreme Court had decided they would not consider any gerrymandering other than racial," Teague said. "The state constitutional provides a broader range of very shallow reasons why it could be justiciable." Three lawyers representing each state official spoke after Chaney's initial remarks. One of those lawyers was John Gore, who is representing Senate President Alexander. His legal defense points to the state constitution and how it makes no mention of partisan gerrymandering and whether it is unlawful. "The constitution does not use the words 'partisan gerrymandering' and does not address partisan gerrymandering in any of the provisions," Gore said. "Instead, the constitution empowers the general assembly to arrange counties into congressional districts as it deems wise and proper." Chief Justice John Kittredge questioned Gore on whether the state's constitution creates room for a valid legal claim on politician gerrymandering in the state. He asked Gore to respond to arguments in a New Hampshire gerrymandering case — that stated voters should select their representatives. Representatives should not select their voters. Gore said he does not believe there is room for a valid legal claim in this case since the state's constitution does not make mention of political gerrymandering. "There's no debate that politics was a factor in drawing District 1," Gore said. "But it wasn't the only factor or the predominant factor." Several justices questioned Chaney about the implications of his client's claims and what a decision could mean for next steps. "What I hear you saying is that you're asking us to take it upon ourselves to decree who gets political power," Justice George James Jr. asked Chaney. "Where are the management standards?" Kittredge said part of the burden in this case is figuring out how the courts can create a legal framework on this topic that's objective and measurable. "Let's just say that you're correct. Where do we go from here?" Kittredge asked. "Does it go back to the legislature?" "I think the only thing the court would need to tell the General Assembly is that you cannot intentionally dilute the electoral influence of a group of voters," Chaney responded. The court adjourned after about an hour and a half. It is now up to the justices to decide what happens next with the case. Bella Carpentier covers the South Carolina legislature, state and Greenville County politics. Contact her at bcarpentier@ This article originally appeared on Greenville News: Oral arguments start in South Carolina Supreme Court congressional map case
