This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

Media Contact:

Jeff Peckman

jpeckman108@msn.com

Rampant Fraud in Colorado Election Says Gubernatorial Candidate

Jeff Peckman, a Unity Party candidate for governor, claims fraud is tarnishing Colorado’s “gold standard” elections. No one has voted yet. So, where’s the fraud?

Peckman said, “Colorado county election offices, 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, and commercial TV and radio stations are breaking the law by engaging in partisan politics. They’re defrauding unaffiliated voters by withholding critical election information. They’re illegally excluding minor party primary candidates from interviews, forums, debates, and voter guides. That benefits the two major political parties and undermines minor parties.

Over 90% of county election offices are not explaining how to vote a Unity Party primary ballot, or even that there is a Unity Party primary. Jefferson, Boulder, and Larimer counties are exceptions. They’re properly informing voters that they must request a Unity Party ballot from the county clerk or at the Voting Center.”

Major and other minor party members may also vote for a Unity Party ballot. However, they must first change their political party affiliation or withdraw their affiliation and become unaffiliated. June 8 is the deadline for either choice.

According to Peckman, “501(c)(3) non-profits, including churches and community news outlets, are hosting forums and debates, and publicizing ‘voter guides’ that illegally exclude Unity Party candidates. The IRS states on its website FAQ page that such organizations must provide, “…an equal opportunity to participate to all political candidates seeking the same office.’

Commercial TV and radio stations are violating federal law. 47 USC 315 states: ‘If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station…”

Peckman asserts that “No legal basis exists for these various entities to exclude minor party primary candidates from official election information and these election opportunities, when major party candidates have been given such opportunities for the same office. The Colorado Public Radio voter guide has set the standard for equal and fair treatment of minor party candidates. Additionally, many county election websites and voter guides simply link to the website of the Colorado Secretary of State’s General Election FAQ page, which contains information that is incomplete, misleading, and confusing.”

Peckman added, “That’s why I filed a complaint with Secretary of State Griswold yesterday and requested an immediate remedy. All qualified voters are legally entitled to complete, accurate, and uniform election information that is not confusing. All qualified candidates are legally entitled to participate in these various election opportunities. This fraud needs to end so voters can make an informed election choice before ballots are mailed on June 8.”

####

The post Rampant Fraud in Colorado Election, Says Gubernatorial Candidate appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This piece is part of Yellow Scene Magazine’s Opinion section. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent a reported news position. At Yellow Scene, opinion pieces speak freely, challenge assumptions, and say the quiet parts out loud.

Guest Contributor: Bernard Douthit

I wanted to thank Mike Broemmel for posting a thoughtful commentary about Governor Jared Polis and the broader question of political leadership in Colorado. I took some time to underscore Mike’s argument with some important details.

Like John Hickenlooper before him, Jared Polis has remained personally popular for much of his time in office. But popularity and branding are not the same as transformational leadership.

On some of Colorado’s most pressing challenges — healthcare costs, tax policy, housing affordability, and environmental justice — Polis often governed like a cautious purple-state technocrat rather than the leader of a state that has repeatedly shown a willingness to embrace ambitious public policy.

Colorado is not Mississippi or Alabama. This is a state that:

• Put single-payer healthcare on the ballot — 150,000+ signatures
• Repeatedly approved large transit expansions
• Legalized marijuana early
• Rejected hosting the Olympics
• Regularly supports local tax increases for schools, parks, and infrastructure

Yet Polis governed as though bold structural reform was politically impossible.

Healthcare is perhaps the clearest example.

Colorado Democrats repeatedly described healthcare affordability as an emergency, yet avoided the kind of political confrontation that real cost containment would require.

Instead of aggressively confronting hospital monopolies and market concentration, the state often relied on commissions, task forces, transparency measures, and heavily branded “public option” reforms that produced incremental change while leaving the underlying system largely intact.

According to multiple studies, including research from the RAND Corporation, Colorado still has some of the highest hospital prices and some of the most profitable hospital systems in the country. Polis governed more like a manager of the healthcare marketplace than a reformer willing to challenge entrenched economic power.

And contrary to the claim that Colorado is too moderate for ambitious healthcare reform, more than 150,000 Coloradans signed petitions to place single-payer healthcare on the ballot through Amendment 69. The measure ultimately failed, but it was also outspent by the healthcare industry by roughly 8-to-1. That history matters.

Tax policy presents a similar story.

Polis consistently opposed more progressive approaches to taxation and largely embraced Colorado’s libertarian tax culture rather than challenging it. Yet during the same period, homeowners across Colorado experienced dramatic increases in property taxes following the repeal of the Gallagher Amendment and the rapid rise in home values.

While Polis and legislators eventually passed relief measures, many homeowners still saw property tax increases far beyond what those policies offset. The response often felt technocratic and incremental rather than structural. And many Coloradans are still asking a simple question: with property values and tax collections rising so dramatically over the last decade, where exactly did all of that additional revenue go?

The same pattern appears with Suncor.

Colorado markets itself as environmentally conscious and climate-forward, yet one of the metro area’s largest and most controversial industrial polluters continues operating near densely populated communities. For decades, residents of north Denver and Commerce City have raised concerns about emissions, odors, and public health impacts, while Suncor has repeatedly faced fines and violations.

Why was there never a truly ambitious long-term plan to relocate, phase down, or fundamentally transform one of the region’s most problematic industrial facilities?

Important things are worth fighting for. Clean air for millions of residents should have been one of them.

The contrast between Polis and other Democratic governors is striking.

Tim Walz pushed universal school meals and labor protections in Minnesota. Gavin Newsom moved California toward state-supported insulin manufacturing and aggressive climate initiatives. Gretchen Whitmer repealed right-to-work laws and advanced major infrastructure investments in Michigan. Jay Inslee built one of the country’s most ambitious state climate agendas in Washington.

Compared with many Democratic peers in similar political conditions, Polis often appeared more focused on political positioning, branding, and technocratic moderation than on pursuing defining structural reforms.

I voted for Jared Polis twice. Like many Coloradans, I hoped he would govern with more courage and ambition than he ultimately did.

Competence matters. But at a time when healthcare affordability, housing costs, environmental risks, and economic inequality are worsening, competence alone is not enough. Colorado needed leadership willing to confront entrenched interests and pursue solutions equal to the scale of the problems we face.

Jared Polis Once Sold Colorado (and the Nation) a Shimmering Emerald City

Original article by Mike Broemmel

He was the libertarian-minded tech governor. The “different kind” of Democrat. The wealthy entrepreneur who promised efficiency over ideology, innovation over inertia, and a fresh political vocabulary that supposedly transcended the stale battles of the past. For a time, many bought the performance. The curtain stayed firmly closed.

But eventually, in politics as in The Wizard of Oz, the machinery begins to sputter. The smoke thins. The booming voice loses resonance. And somewhere in the back of the chamber, Toto pulls at the curtain.

What remains is not the great and powerful wizard. What remains is merely a man frantically working levers.

The Leader Who Never Was

History is crowded with political figures who mistook branding for leadership.

There was Ron DeSantis, once marketed as the inevitable heir to Trumpism before collapsing beneath the weight of his own synthetic persona. There was Michael Dukakis, whose technocratic competence could never ignite genuine public trust. There was British Prime Minister Liz Truss, whose ideological theater imploded in real time before the world’s financial markets.

And now there is Jared Polis.

The tragedy — or perhaps the farce — of Polis is not simply that his governorship appears to be collapsing. It is that the collapse reveals something darker: there may never have been much substance there to begin with.

Polis governed like a man permanently auditioning for a future role. A presidential run. A national media identity. A carefully focus-grouped brand called “reasonable futurism.” He floated above conflict, avoided moral clarity whenever possible, and cultivated the image of being smarter than the room without ever proving capable of leading it.

Colorado increasingly became a state managed through vibes, branding campaigns, and social media aesthetics rather than coherent civic vision. And eventually, voters notice.

The Emerald City Illusion

For years, Polis benefited from Colorado’s broader economic and demographic momentum. The state grew. Wealth poured in. Tech money expanded. Denver transformed into a glossy urban postcard marketed to affluent transplants.

But underneath the emerald glow sat worsening affordability, deepening housing crises, visible urban deterioration, and growing public frustration about safety, infrastructure, and basic governmental competence. The contradiction became impossible to ignore.

Polis often seemed less interested in governing Colorado than in narrating Colorado — endlessly promoting an image of innovation while ordinary residents confronted a state increasingly unaffordable to live in.

The Wizard projected grandeur on the giant screen. Behind the curtain? Panic. Improvisation. Hollow performance. The problem with governing as branding is that eventually reality insists on participating.

The Politics of Evasion

Great leaders absorb political risk when principle demands it. Polis perfected the opposite instinct.

Again and again, he positioned himself slightly outside the emotional center of consequential debates, forever triangulating, forever calculating. During moments requiring moral force, he often defaulted to managerial language and carefully sterilized ambiguity.

That instinct has now reached its grotesque culmination in the Tina Peters clemency debacle.

The decision to commute the sentence of the former Mesa County clerk convicted in an election security breach tied to 2020 election conspiracy theories detonated across Colorado’s political landscape. Even members of Polis’s own party reacted with fury and disbelief. Critics argued the move rewarded election denialism while signaling weakness in the face of pressure from Donald Trump and his allies.

Polis defended the clemency as a response to sentencing disparity concerns after an appeals court questioned aspects of Peters’s sentencing. But politically — symbolically — the damage may already be irreversible.

Because the issue is no longer merely Tina Peters. The issue is collapse.

The Final Flame in the Inferno

Every failed governing regime has its final defining image:

For Richard Nixon, it was the helicopter departure from the White House lawn.
For Rudy Giuliani, it was Four Seasons Total Landscaping.

For Jared Polis, it may well be the moment he chose clemency for Tina Peters.

Not because the legal arguments are entirely frivolous. Reasonable debate exists over sentencing severity. But leadership is not merely legal interpretation. Leadership is moral comprehension. It is understanding the symbolic weight of decisions within historical context.

And this decision landed like gasoline on an already raging fire.

At precisely the moment democratic institutions remain under sustained assault by election conspiracists, Polis handed one of the movement’s most celebrated figures a political victory. Trumpworld rejoiced. Election deniers claimed vindication. Colorado Democrats openly revolted. The wizard’s machinery exploded in plain view.

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

That line from The Wizard of Oz endures because it captures an eternal political truth: power often depends upon performance more than substance.

Jared Polis mastered performance politics. But performances cannot govern forever.

Eventually citizens ask harder questions. What did this administration actually build? What moral vision did it defend? What crises did it truly solve? What courage did it display when courage became expensive?

And increasingly, the answers feel uncomfortably thin.

The great irony is that Polis spent years cultivating the image of the pragmatic adult in the room — the sophisticated governor above partisan hysteria. Yet his governorship may ultimately be remembered for collapsing into exactly the kind of muddled opportunism he once implied he transcended.

The Emerald City flickers. The smoke machine dies. And standing behind the curtain is not a visionary statesman. Just another politician desperately pulling levers while the audience finally sees the truth.

—————————
From: Politix INK
https://mikebroemmel.com/politix-ink

The post Guest Opinion: Why Jared Polis has disappointed us appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Although November’s elections are over, their meaning is still being argued, especially when it comes to how much tolerance Colorado voters have for candidates linked to far-right extremism.

In some races, incumbents survived and political control barely shifted. In others, voters drew sharper lines. Taken together, the results suggest an electorate negotiating where, exactly, its boundaries lie, particularly when candidates are accused of ties to extremist movements.

That tension was on display in Westminster’s mayoral race.

When Westminster residents went to the polls on Nov. 5, they faced three distinct choices for mayor. Council member Claire Carmelia emerged with a comfortable victory over her two challengers. One of them, David DeMott, spent part of his campaign responding to renewed allegations that he had ties to the far-right extremist group known as the Three Percenters.

David DeMott

The allegations were not new. In 2021, an old photograph surfaced online showing DeMott wearing a hat bearing the Three Percenters’ logo. DeMott has consistently denied being a member of the group, saying the image was mischaracterized and that he does not support extremist ideology.

The Anti-Defamation League describes the Three Percenters as a militia movement that directs its hostility toward “perceived foes, including leftists/antifa, Muslims, and immigrants.” Members broadly share a deep mistrust of government and promote what they describe as a “restoration of the Founders’ Republic.” Unlike more centralized extremist organizations, however, the Three Percenters operate through loosely connected chapters and sympathizers, an ambiguity that often allows political figures to distance themselves from formal membership while still facing scrutiny over association.

Asked about the outcome of the race, DeMott said his loss reflected more than just the controversy. “While there were misleading attacks and a broader national shift that affected many candidates seen as more conservative, I trust the outcome happened as it was meant to,” he said.

Still, the question raised by Westminster voters lingers beyond the city’s borders: was DeMott’s defeat a rejection of candidates linked, directly or indirectly, to extremist movements, or merely the result of local dynamics and a strong opponent?

DeMott is not the first Colorado politician to face questions about extreme views or associations. The state’s most prominent example is U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert.

Elected in 2020 to represent Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, Boebert quickly became one of the most outspoken figures on the far right. She has faced repeated scrutiny for her rhetoric and her past expressions of support for individuals connected to the Three Percenters. In 2023, amid growing backlash in her district, Boebert announced she would seek reelection in the more conservative 4th District. She ultimately won that race.

Her decision to change districts raised a different but related question: did Boebert sense that even conservative voters were growing less willing to tolerate candidates perceived as extreme? And if so, does her success in the 4th District suggest those limits are regional, rather than statewide?

The Three Percenters are only one of several far-right movements that have intersected with Colorado politics in recent years. In 2022, the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights reported that 14 Colorado state legislators had ties to far-right Facebook groups. At the local level, where races receive less scrutiny, the number of officials with similar connections may be even higher.

Those connections have occasionally drawn national attention. On Dec. 3, President Donald Trump used his Truth Social account to criticize Colorado Gov. Jared Polis for not intervening in the imprisonment of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters. Peters was convicted in 2024 on charges of election interference stemming from her efforts to undermine the results of the 2020 election, which she falsely claimed was stolen. In November 2021, Peters appeared in a video alongside Cory Anderson, a known supporter of the Three Percenters.

Journalist Shane Bauer has traced the ideological roots of the Three Percenters to earlier far-right movements galvanized by the election of President Barack Obama. Writing for Mother Jones, Bauer described how splinter groups formed from older organizations, adapting their strategies and increasingly turning toward electoral politics as a means of influence. In Colorado, this included the emergence of groups like the Three Percent United Patriots, or 3UP.

A protester wears a Three Percenter flag on the East Plaza of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, ahead of the storming of the Capitol. Photo by Elvert Barnes, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

The strategy, Bauer argued, was simple: if the system could not be overthrown, it could be entered.

Dr. Derek R. Everett, a historian at Metropolitan State University of Denver, said these dynamics are not new to Colorado.

“This brings to mind the 2013 secession movement based in Weld County,” Everett said. “It was motivated by a sentiment that has percolated in Colorado since World War II, essentially the idea that Colorado just doesn’t feel like Colorado anymore.”

That feeling, Everett said, sits at the core of many extremist movements, both in the state and nationally. “You could find that sentiment at the heart of almost any ‘extreme’ group that’s arisen over the past century,” he said, often paired with the belief that the country must be made ‘great’ again, however individuals choose to define that past.

What remains unclear is whether far-right groups are seeing meaningful returns from their engagement with electoral politics. Are these movements successfully normalizing their ideas through candidates and campaigns? Or are recent election results signaling a limit, an electorate willing to tolerate conservative politics, but not associations with extremism?

For now, Colorado’s elections offer no single answer. Instead, they reveal a patchwork of outcomes, shaped by geography, turnout, and local context. But taken together, those outcomes suggest voters are actively negotiating where ideology ends and extremism begins, and whether the two can still coexist on the ballot.

The ones who dared to fight City Hall.

 When Boulder denied public access to police body-cam footage, we took it to court. Our fight for transparency is now before the Colorado Supreme Court — because accountability doesn’t stop at the city line.

Through December 31, every gift to Yellow Scene will be matched — dollar for dollar — through the Colorado Media Project’s Matching Grant.Give & Get Democracy this Holiday Season. Your $8 recurring monthly support not only gets you YS delivered to your house, but it’s matched for the entire year, bringing that $8/month to $192.

Because Independent journalism isn’t just about telling stories. It’s about protecting your right to know, holding power accountable, and keeping democracy in the light. This is #newsCOneeds Becoming a sustaining supporter today for $8 a month!

The post Westminster mayoral race highlights broader debate on extremism appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The post Letter to the Editor: Boulder Needs to Wake Up Before It’s Too Late appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Last week, we published a story examining the role of independent political groups in Boulder’s election. Election coverage always attracts scrutiny, especially when it touches on dark money and the influence of private spending. That’s expected, and we welcome it. Our coverage of money in politics is ongoing. This isn’t the first or last time we’ll report on organizations shaping local elections.

This year’s New York City’s mayoral race, won by Mr. Zohran Mamdani, reflected more than local divides. It touched on the national split between corporate Democrats and progressives, rising affordability issues, and even foreign policy debates like Gaza. One thread deserves more attention: the growing divide between candidates backed by deep pockets and those running grassroots campaigns. Mamdani often contrasted himself with his opponent Andrew Cuomo by calling out his alleged billionaire donors and emphasizing his own independence. That framing resonated because Americans across the spectrum are increasingly uneasy about private money, gerrymandering, and other forms of influence shaping elections.

At Yellow Scene, our job is to help voters understand who’s funding what and how that funding shapes local politics. “Dark money” isn’t a simple topic. The funding streams are often complex, and organizations are not monolithic. Each group operates differently, with its own goals and methods. While broad trends matter, we agree that nuance is essential.

We stand by our reporting on Boulder but recognize that some details deserve clarification. In the interest of transparency, we’re addressing a few of the critiques directly.

Firstly, a letter sent to us from one organization.

Letter from Open Boulder

Dear Mr. Clichenbeard,

Your reporter, Bella Farris, wrote an article on dark money in Boulder politics. She included Open Boulder as an independent political organization leveraging undisclosed funding and no funding caps.

Actually, Open Boulder formed a UCC (unaffiliated candidate committee). All contributions and expenses are disclosed, and donations are capped at $100. We have followed the rules down to the letter of the law and have not co-mingled funds as other organizations have done.

In fact, our public filings show every donor and every expense. Your inclusion of Open Boulder in a “dark money” discussion is slanderous. What will you do about it?

—Open Boulder 2025 UCC

A quick note before we respond: our editor hasn’t been Austin Clickenbeard for a while now, though his work helped define Yellow Scene for a time. Angry letters about our current coverage should instead be directed toward me, Destiny Hale. I read them all, I promise.

Now, to the point.

The accusation is that we slandered Open Boulder. To be clear, the article’s primary focus was on Engage Boulder. Here’s the full and only mention of Open Boulder:

“Caruso is not the first to form an independent political group in Boulder. Open Boulder, a civic organization with a more centrist reputation, has endorsed several 2025 candidates — including Jenny Robins, Rob Kaplan, Matt Benjamin, and Mark Wallach. Both groups reflect a broader trend in local politics: small organizations and well-funded individuals seeking to shape Boulder’s political direction outside formal campaigns.”

A fairly tame and accurate statement hardly indicative of slander. That said, grouping Engage Boulder and Open Boulder together was somewhat imprecise. Open Boulder has endorsed candidates that Engage Boulder opposes and operates more transparently. It’s fair to acknowledge that difference. But it’s equally fair to note that Open Boulder remains a private organization seeking to influence elections, as its own materials make clear. Our role is to help voters understand those dynamics and then many people vying to influence their vote.

Comment on Dan Caruso

“Why am I not surprise that you would lie to your readers. Dan Caruso is not even close to being a billionaire. In fact, he’s not even worth a $100 million. For every billionaire representing the Republican party there are two representing the Democratic party. As journalist espousing to speak the truth, the only truth here is your lying. Spreading misinformation and disinformation. It is shameful and necessary for me to call you out. Please do better and start by admitting to not researching you statements in this article and that it is misinformation. Although you risk losing some readership (subscribers) will earn some respect from many of them.”

Our article described Dan Caruso as a billionaire. Public records suggest his net worth is closer to the hundreds of millions, not billions. However, companies he’s led have managed and negotiated investments worth billions, and his role as a venture capitalist makes precise valuation difficult. Calling him a billionaire may have been an overstatement; calling him a major financial power player is not. The broader point about large financial interests shaping Boulder’s elections remains accurate.

The more serious criticism here is about bias. Yellow Scene Magazine has clear values: transparency, accountability, and fair elections. We’re loyal to those principles, not to any party. We’ve called out dark money and election manipulation by Democrats and Republicans alike. Mamdani’s race in New York and the Democratic establishment’s quiet backing of Cuomo are just one example that this issue cuts both ways.

Private organizations and wealthy donors continue to shape outcomes. The candidates backed by Caruso and Engage Boulder performed strongly. And ignoring that would be a disservice to Boulder voters.

Final Word

Our commitment is simple: report the facts, show our work, and correct when precision demands it. The role of journalism is to exam and critique power. Boulder’s voters deserve transparency from everyone shaping their democracy, including us.

The post An Editor’s Note – Dark Money in Boulder & Transparency appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Editor’s Note: Press releases are provided to Yellow Scene Magazine. In an effort to keep our community informed, we publish some press releases in whole.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 9, 2025

Contact: Andrew Nicla

andrew@coloradodems.org

(720) 580-3251

DENVER, CO – State Senator Barbara Kirkmeyer is expected to announce her candidacy for governor today while touting her record, which is littered with decades of corruption, extremism, and putting special interests over working families. Colorado Republicans expect candidates who can bring their Party together, and unfortunately Kirkmeyer is sure to inflame an already divided Party plagued with infighting.

In response to her candidacy announcement, Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib issued the following statement.

“Coloradans are tired of politicians who sell them out to donors, and Senator Kirkmeyer is one of the worst offenders in the state legislature. From defending Trump’s giveaways to giant corporations and the wealthy, to her attempts to plunge the state into a deficit, Kirkmeyer is more of the same that Coloradans have come to expect of an out-of-touch Republican Party eager to please its donors and online trolls before voters,” said Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib

“While pretending to be a self-proclaimed budget hawk, Barbara Kirkmeyer defended Colorado Republicans in Congress when they blew a $1.2 billion hole in our state budget, cutting people’s health care and food assistance for kids while jacking up the cost of things like groceries, gas, and your health insurance.”

Here are 12 things you didn’t know about Barbara Kirkmeyer

1. She’s running to represent a state she wanted to secede from.

She’s expected to announce her candidacy at the Historic Fort Lupton, the same location where a watch party for Weld County’s secession referendum was hosted, a measure she supported. The measure asked voters if Weld County should leave Colorado and form its own state. Kirkmeyer said she had “no regrets” about trying to break Weld County away from Colorado.

2. She’s against reproductive freedom.

Kirkmeyer signed personhood petitions, compared abortion to prostitution and rape, and even voted to ban Plan B from Weld County health clinics. In her own words: “I don’t agree to any exceptions to abortion.”

3. She tried to hide her abortion record.

During her 2022 congressional campaign, Kirkmeyer scrubbed her website (original here) of references to her opposition to abortion rights after securing the GOP nomination, proving she knows her stance is toxic to Colorado voters.

4. She defended Trump and Colorado Congressional Republicans’ Medicaid and food stamp cuts, and a $1.2 billion budget hole.

Kirkmeyer was the lead Republican voice who spread lies and misinformation about the federal budget that Colorado Republicans in Congress approved and President Trump signed. That bill blew an immediate $1.2 billion hole in Colorado’s state budget, cut funding for Medicaid and food stamps, put at least six rural hospitals (all in Rep. Jeff Hurd’s district) at risk of closing, and more.

5. She’s anti-family and anti-worker.

In her time in the Colorado General Assembly, she opposed family leave, maternal health coverage, child tax credits, lowering property taxes and wage protections for agricultural workers.

6. She personally profited from oil and gas.

In 2013, Kirkmeyer and her siblings sold 110 acres to Anadarko Petroleum for $950,000 while she was a Weld County Commissioner approving sweetheart deals for the same industry. Anadarko’s PAC was also one of her top donors.

7. She sided with polluters over kids.

When high benzene levels were detected near Bella Romero Elementary School, Kirkmeyer accused the health department of “fear mongering” instead of protecting children.

8. She stripped retiree health benefits.

In 2009, she voted to terminate Weld County’s Retirement Health Savings Plan, cutting off benefits for about 300 retired employees during the Great Recession.

9. She voted against cracking down on fentanyl dealers.

In 2022, Kirkmeyer voted against a bipartisan bill that made fentanyl possession a felony and expanded law enforcement tools, even though police backed the bill.

10. She tried to block gun safety reforms.

When the Colorado General Assembly passed a law to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and those with severe mental illness, Kirkmeyer voted to declare Weld County a “Second Amendment Sanctuary” and opposed background checks, ammo limits, and training requirements. She dismissed Colorado’s post-Aurora reforms as useless.

11. She fearmongered about solar panels.

Kirkmeyer claimed solar facilities could become “superfund sites,” while never raising similar alarms about oil and gas, the industry that funded her campaigns.

12. She tried to silence Weld County’s watchdogs.

Kirkmeyer voted to eliminate the Weld County Council, the independent body that reviewed commissioner conflicts of interest and kept commissioners honest.

The Bottom Line

Barbara Kirkmeyer hasn’t changed. She’s the same extreme, donor-driven politician she’s always been. Now, she’s trying to hide her record from voters. Colorado hasn’t elected a Republican governor in over two decades for a reason: extremist candidates like Barbara Kirkmeyer are out of step with Colorado values.

The post Barbara Kirkmeyer’s Billionaire-First Agenda Puts Donors Before Coloradans appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Waking up this morning to a snow-covered Denver, I reflected on last night’s events with a surreal platitude one reserves for dreams. I felt a strange disconnectedness from the world around me, a creeping apathetic hedonism that will likely propel me through the next several months. My co-workers at my day job, a High School within the Denver Public School system, shared both my anxiety and apathy for the state of things.

Last night, Donald Trump overwhelmingly won both the popular vote and the Electoral College. And before people go pointing fingers, though I’m sure this has already started, not a single third-party candidate won any Electoral College votes. Whether they were in a swing state or a blue strong-hold like Colorado, third-party voters could not have saved Harris from this devastating loss.

Republicans are also projected to take a majority in the Senate, flipping seats in West Virginia, Ohio, and Montana. The House race is still too close to call.

In Colorado, progressives passed Amendment 79 and Amendment J, codifying the rights to same-sex marriage and abortion in the state’s constitution. Voters also passed taxes on sports betting and firearm sales.

The state’s justice system will see changes starting in 2025, with voters passing measures that remove the right to bail in case of first-degree murder and requiring persons convicted of certain violent crimes to serve more of their sentence before being eligible for parole.

Colorado voters also chose to keep money out of politics by rejecting Kent Thriy’s Proposition 131 to change Colorado elections to open primaries and switch to ranked-choice voting. Shrouded in popular progressive election reform, Prop 131 would have transformed Colorado’s primaries into a pay-to-play format, allowing politically active billionaires like Thiry to easily throw their hat in the ring with little popular support.

Yellow Scene covered Thiry’s marred past in politics and various legal battles extensively earlier this year.

Though several bomb threats were made to polling stations in swing states, none of these threats proved credible, and voting resumed at all locations after authorities had cleared the sites as safe. Democrats online have begun, ironically, making claims of election fraud, which, as of right now, are completely unfounded.

While all of the votes have yet to be counted, several credible publications have called the 2024 Presidential Election in favor of Trump, with him winning in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Kamala Harris is expected to concede Wednesday afternoon.

In the face of a second Trump presidency, community connections and mutual aid will be the path to getting through an instable future. In the meantime, Yellow Scene will stay dedicated to speaking truth to power and providing the Front Range with invaluable fact-based journalism.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter (and get our printed copy monthly at home.)

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

The post What Just Happened: Election Results From Colorado Ballot Measures to Democratic Defeat appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

 

 

More on the Acme Pad. 

Polis v Earth: Reckoning

You can sign the ballot initiative here. 

Colorado Activists Revive Anti-Fracking Ballot Iniative, New York Times

The post New 2500 Set-back measure collecting signatures for the ballot appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

* The election that was held on November 5th drew 46.68  percent of eligible voters in Boulder County, compared to 40.99 percent throughout Colorado.

* Statewide Proposition CC, a measure which would allow the state to retain revenue above the state spending cap to provide funding for transportation and education rather than refunding it, was supported by Boulder County but lost statewide. Colorado taxpayers will continue to receive refunds that have an additional $26 to $90 annually for each taxpayer. 

* Other election decisions that passed by a wide margin included one in Boulder where voters supported a tax on vaping products. Voters also supported a middle-income housing support program.

* Longmont voters supported a  new competitive pool and an ice rink. * October 2019 proved to be the snowiest since 2009 with 12.5 inches of powder and a series of wild, single-day temperature swings.

* Erie held listening sessions for its new Town Center development effort. The week-long process was focused on land surrounding the intersection of County Line Road and Erie Parkway including near the library, recreation center, and municipal ball fields.

* The woman who was tasered by a Boulder County officer while fully restrained has filed a lawsuit against Boulder County and several Sheriff’s deputies. She was initially taken into custody for refusing to sign a summons she was given for smoking, littering, and having her service dog off-leash on Pearl Street Mall

* Lafayette’s planning commission approved a preliminary plan, a special-use review, site plan, and architectural review for the Circle Motel property.

* A feud between neighbors escalated when Katherine Cherry allegedly edged a crossbow through a front door of a Longmont home and fired. The resident’s arm was grazed by the arrow and she returned the aggression by wielding a hammer. Cherry was taken into custody.

* Colorado Parks and Wildlife held a meeting in Erie to discuss recent Coyote activity in the area, advising residents on how to respond to any encounters.

* Boulder County will have a new County Administrator position as of January 14th. The position is a major change in how County government is structured and will supervise several departments that previously reported directly to commissioners.

Small Talk

“Implementing year-round sheltering for our most vulnerable residents in Longmont this year was a big win for us and our community.”

– Joseph Zanovitch, Executive Director of HOPE

“This is a situation that puts us (in a place) where we are unable to provide service daily in the way  that we should.”

– Pauletta Tonilas, RTD spokeswoman on potential cuts in service due to a shortage of oper

“Illegal Pete’s always has been and always will be a Colorado company. Even as we continue to grow out of state, with two locations in Arizona and even more out-of-state locations planned in the future, we’ll always call Colorado home.”

– Pete Turner, Illegal Pete’s founder and president, announcing that the company would move major operations back to Colorado

“The cycling community has a big challenge ahead of us: we must save what has been created as a safe, community-driven yet internationally recognized, venue for all levels of bike riders.  We have received verbal commitments from a number of people interested in the investment but still, have a ways to go before raising the full amount of  $1.750M. This is a grassroots effort and we need all cyclists interested in protecting this asset to help!” 

– Cari Higgins, spokesperson for the effort to raise enough money to prevent the pending sale of the Boulder County Velodrome.

By The Numbers

The post Month in Review: November 2019 — Yellow Scene Magazine appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.