HeyNext, Kyle Clark made a factual error and hasn't yet fixed it. While we're on the topic, it's too late for 2023, but how can YOU weigh in on Blue Book language? Learn for 2024.
Kyle Clark gets it wrong, or at the very least, incomplete. The part he left out or screwed up?
The things the Democrats are comfortable with you thinking Prop HH will (or won't) do of course.
I watch all kinds of things across the political spectrum. I do so even if I have to spend that time ready to yell at the computer or radio.
One of the programs on my "watch it for character building" list is Next on 9News.
I watched it last week and got curious when Mr. Clark mentioned (see starting at about the 1 minute mark of the first link below) that the Republicans failed to get their preferred descriptions and wording into the Blue Book.
He said "Republicans could not convince that group [non-partisan legislative staff] to change the wording around Governor Jared Polis' ten year tax plan, Prop HH ..."
I wanted to learn more about this, so I tracked down the committee audio and also delved a little into the process of how the Blue Book is written. I thought you might also like to know.
There are likely a lot more subtleties involved here, but I'll be brief. For more details, you can hear more of the process in the committee audio linked second below (in the opening statement on how they wrote the Blue Book entries for Prop HH and II, they discuss in some detail the process).
You could also reach out to your state rep/senator or email to the Legislative Council Staff.
Here's the overview:
The non-partisan Legislative Council Staff forms a group (with people of different specialties, e.g. an economist) and sits down to write a bluebook entry. Some things are pretty easy to do because they're spelled out specifically in statute or case law. Some things are procedure. Some things are left up to the group to decide.
They write up the effect of the law. They write up arguments for and against.
The way they consider, according to the testimony delivered to the legislative committee at least (and there's no reason to doubt it), what to include is based on what kinds of things would people want to know about the initiative or referedum in plain language as they sit around their tables at home. What effects will it have on my budget or my life?
They come up with a first draft and revise it.
They come up with a second draft and solicit comment. They take comment from both "experts" and the general public.
Believe it or not, this comment (from those for and against) does change what goes in the blue book. How do I know?
Well, not only did they testify to that, but if you look at the third draft of the blue book language in the third link below. It has the comments that the public sent in and then you can see the changes made in the text as a result.
At this point, the bluebook language goes in for a hearing in front of the Legislative Council Committee of the General Assembly. That committee is linked fourth below. I attached a screenshot to show this year's members. I'll explain why in a second.
The nonpartisan Legislative Council Staff then presents their draft language to the committee. The committee hears comment from the public and from each other, along with questions for those testifying and/or those on the Legislative Council Staff.
Legislators offer amendments to change the proposed Blue Book language, those amendments are debated and voted on, and then the language (with any amended language) is accepted.
In other words, it is the legislators themselves who decide whether or not any amendments are made to the language. They have the ultimate power on what the Blue Book says through this process.
If you listen to the audio in the link below, you'll get a sense of this when the head of the group that wrote the proposed language for Prop HH specifically lays this out.
This is what Mr. Clark gets wrong. And, yes, it's important enough to point out, for two reasons.
One, people need to know that each and every Democrat on this committee (see the screenshot if you'd like names) voted down each and every change proposed to the language. From big to small, they voted down all.
Second, knowing this changes the tenor of the outcome considerably. Instead of hapless Republicans unable to convince sober, nonpartisan staff, it's a story of a political beef. It's a story of Democrats refusing to countenance any change to their baby.
It's a story that people who might take offense at the wording and the, frankly, duplicity of the Democrats with this referendum (and who happen to live in a Democrat district), may want to know.
Kyle Clark frequently leaves out important details, and he frequently ignores stories that (and this is my speculation here) won't sell to his audience.
What I've not seen much of in the past has been factual errors. My guess is that, since he knows people would love nothing more than to call him out on his errors, he, like our Governor, is savvy enough to carefully weigh and watch his words.
That is not the case here. He has it wrong. Again, every attempted change to the language in the Blue Book (and every effort made by those testifying) was ignored or died on a party line vote.
I emailed Mr. Clark and even took the step of contacting the station to inform them of this error. As of this writing no one from 9 News has contacted me or put up a correction (that I'm aware of, if you know of one, please let me know and I'll post).
Mistakes happen. People say the wrong thing. This applies even to "journalists" like Mr. Clark.
But, if he's to have any credibility when he responds to those that call him out on his bias (his usual response is to question the person what facts he got wrong), he needs to correct things when he has them wrong.
His lack of response and lack of correction on this speaks volumes where he won't.
https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00327/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230831/-1/14864
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/initiative%2520referendum_prop%20hh%20final%20lc%20packet.pdf
https://leg.colorado.gov/committees/legislative-council/2023-regular-session
How can you weigh in on Blue Book language? I hope you join me in setting a calendar reminder to do so in 2024.
The last post was about the process to set the Blue Book language for Prop HH.
I would like to encourage you to join me in speaking up or sending in comment to future hearings on the wording of the Blue Book.
I'd also like to encourage you to send in comment to the Legislative Council Staff. As you can see in the draft report above, it does matter.
I will post again later when the deadlines for the 2024 election come up (2023's ship has sailed), but for now here are a couple resources for you to learn the process.
I got a video and an article on the subject, so pick which suits your style..
You can also just directly sign up to be on the email update list for the ballot analysis. This way, things are automatic: you can get an email when the Blue Book language is being written and then you'll know to send in your thoughts if you're interested. I've signed up, I encourage you to do the same.
Call 303-866-3521 or email to lcs.ga@coleg.gov
A thank you to Ms. Menten for her efforts in this regard. I wish I had listened to her sooner. I got the calender reminders for 2024 set, however. Expect to be hearing again.
https://freestatecolorado.com/property-taxes-in-2023-part-7/
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2023/08/15/menten-honest-voter-guide-needed-to-counter-proposition-hh-deception/