Jessica Peck2013-05-19T11:49:29-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=jessica-corryCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Jessica PeckGood old fashioned elbow grease.GOP Caucus Roundup: From Glitter Bombs to Santorum's Surprisetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12637442012-02-08T19:12:25-05:002012-04-09T05:12:01-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/presidential caucuses in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado. While the votes were non-binding, the results are telling. So what exactly do they tell?
Coming into Colorado's caucus night, Gov. Mitt Romney was considered a shoe-in for leading the pack. In 2008, in a crowded primary field, he took over 50 percent of votes across the state. Last night, his support plummeted to just 35 percent, second to Santorum's claim to 40 percent of the 66,000 votes statewide. Interestingly, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul didn't present the threat feared, bringing in 12 and 11 percent, respectively.
In real numbers, Romney lost Colorado Tuesday by 3,600 votes. He failed to repeat 2008 victories in three key key counties, including El Paso (Santorum prevailed by 1,790 votes), Larimer (500 vote difference between the two), and Weld (700 vote difference). Together, these three counties constitute 80 percent of Romney's loss.
So what the heck happened?
Are Colorado's GOP voters becoming more socially conservative, and thus drawn to Santorum's religious, meat and potatoes messaging? Can the results be construed as a backlash against the Mormon Church's ongoing and omniponent public relations campaign?
Conversely, does Santorum's victory have less to do with messaging and more with style?
A quick scan of Facebook this morning suggests so. In response to high-profile political analyst Eric Sondermann's call for a public analysis, a Weld County woman concluded that the difference was all about the access each campaign granted to ordinary voters.
"Something smart Santorum's doing, is executing a 'hands on' - with people - as opposed to just throwing money at them," she said. "Folks I know don't care much for people who try to 'buy them.'"
Perhaps this is the GOP's own "Occupy Wall Street" moment. Historically, conservative voters in Colorado reject candidates they see as trying to buy an election. Take Bruce Benson's failed gubernatorial bid. He is an incredibly bright, self-made astute business leader, but money didn't land him victory. Similar high-dollar bids from Pete Coors for U.S. Senate and Bob Beauprez for governor came up short.
Over the last two presidential election cycles, Colorado voters have relished an unprecedented access to candidates that almost rivals what Iowa voters enjoy through their nationally-watched straw polls every four years. When Democrats hosted their 2008 national convention in Denver, voters got front row access, and the lucky ones got rock star seats at President Obama's sold out stadium acceptance speech. This year, voters and strategists alike once again assume that Colorado will provide a crucial stage for winning over previously neglected voters living between Chicago and L.A.
Voters have tasted the political bug and they want to be "touched" -- both figuratively and physically.
Another poster to Sondermann's Facebook page described how at a glitzy Monday night fundraiser, Santorum had captured his fancy. "We sat together, he looked at me when I was talking, and I felt like he wasn't telling me what he thought I wanted to hear, but what he genuinely believed."
Not every candidate can be the common man. Voters are skeptical about Romney's religion, his immense wealth, his good looks and the fact that he has never -- not once -- had a glass of wine too many. Ironically, Santorum's clean-as-a-whistle image is being embraced by voters. Social class definitely plays a role here.
Today, voters can sign into White House-hosted interactive town hall forums, surf an endless Internet for the latest rumors, quotes and photos, and ultimately gain a sense of connection to political contenders now subjected to a glare nearly as intense as any facing a paparazzi-chased Hollywood star.
Let's face it. We are a celebrity-obsessed culture. We feel important when that person we've studied from afar suddenly pays attention to us. Even if it's nothing more than a wave, a handshake, or a photo of the candidate holding our babies. We all love dropping names of various candidates we've "spoken to" at campaign rallies. It's all so seductive.
At Romney's post-caucus rally in Denver, one voter expressed bewilderment at not knowing what had changed between Romney's 2008 landslide and Santorum's 2012 underdog coup. It may be more simple than we think. While Santorum was chowing down with voters, Romney remained five feet away, limiting contact to shaking hands across a rope. The distance was barely enough to hinder a failed "glitter bomb" attack by one attendee. Secret Service agents immediately leapt into action, having the man removed.
Arguably, the security was reasonable, a response perhaps to credible threats of bodily harm. Legitimate or not, however, the Romney campaign faces a perceptible barrier on many levels -- both metaphorical and physical -- between the candidate and voters. Last night's vote was an acknowledgment and protest of that barrier.
Also frustrating Romney's efforts: rejection of two popular arguments repeated again and again by his supporters. We should vote for Romney, we were told, because he can beat Obama. We should vote for Romney because he doesn't turn off women like Gingrich does. Sorry guys, but in my house, that's not enough to earn our votes.
A cornerstone of the Republican Party, at least in theory, is the concept of free will -- free markets, school choice, etc. Despite Romney's embrace of these concepts, he's leading with a message that he's the inevitable candidate, and that just doesn't sit well with a party that's already feeling its impact stifled by the current administration.
Also key: while often misunderstood, Colorado's political environment is punctuated by a bi-partisan commitment to voters' western live-and-live ethos. To see Santorum's victory as an indicator of a more socially conservative GOP would be a mistake. He's accessible. His pitch isn't all about electability. And he's not Romney.
Santorum is the latest crush in the GOP's seemingly endless speed dating with alternatives to Romney. Remember Gingrich, Paul, Perry and other friends that once consumed media attention from atop the debate stage? Oh wait. That was last week.
My humble prediction: Romney has the resources and the moderate temperament necessary to win the nomination. It's premature to write off Santorum -- or even Gingrich. Republicans should abstain from talking about social issues altogether. If Romney makes it through the primary -- and I believe he has the best shot out of the current field -- he needs to reach out and touch voters. Even if it means he gets nailed with a few more glitter bombs along the way.
Jessica K. Peck, Esq. serves as the executive director of Colorado's Open Government Institute and as a principal with Henley Public Affairs.
]]>How Not to Pick Aurora's Mayortag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9035742011-07-20T11:21:37-04:002011-09-19T05:12:02-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/recent analysis of the mayoral race in Aurora, Colorado, published by Colorado Peak Politics, drew my attention.
CPP's take, in a nutshell: while the race for mayor of Aurora is basically among various flavors of Republicans, including one convert to the party and one defector from it, the race is not your father's GOP primary, "establishment vs. grassroots" as CPP aptly puts it. Instead, the race is really between the "old guard" and the "new guard." Here, CPP gets it right.
Where things get complicated, however, is distinguishing new from old in an era when the GOP is just now recovering from the bloodletting of last year's gubernatorial disaster, resulting in Democrat John Hickenlooper taking the contest easily and leaving GOP insiders to wonder who was left on the bench for the next go around.
This Aurora race may just have some contenders. As CPP acknowledges, three solid candidates have jumped in. Steve Hogan, the Democrat-turned-Republican, is a 24-year veteran of the Aurora City Council. He failed twice in runs for Congress (as a Democrat) but has hired a solid team of veteran GOP operatives for this run, garnering the endorsements of some former conservative superstars such as Governor Bill Owens.
Next up is Ryan Frazier, a friend of mine and also an Aurora City Council vet who most recently ran for U.S. Senate, then Congress, in 2010.
And then there is Jude Sandvall, also a friend of mine and a young private-sector entrepreneur who has never before held any public office, and whom CPP correctly dubs "a great guy with solid conservative principles" who "would make a good mayor."
Both Frazier and Sandvall have enough insider experience to be considered "old guard" (Sandvall also ran unsuccessfully for office as a candidate for RTD's board), but unlike Hogan they both also have enough passion and youth to be the poster child for new leadership.
Interestingly, CPP paints things differently, picking Frazier as the uniquely fresh face, or "new guard," and tagging Sandvall as just another establishment candidate. No matter how much one might like Frazier, however, and I do like him, that's not a fair or objective analysis. Sandvall is certainly less known than Frazier, but if anything that makes him an even fresher face and an even newer guard.
Reared in the Midwest by a union electrician father and a homemaker mother, Sandvall moved to Colorado because hard work paid off. His ice hockey prowess landed him a scholarship at DU. When that scholarship ran out and he could no longer afford DU, he didn't give up. He transferred to Metro State and worked night shifts to finish his economics degree.
Sandvall then rose through the ranks of a small business, starting at the bottom and learning firsthand on the way up what it means to create and to preserve jobs, and to have "P&L" responsibility. Because he has never held a government job, he has never counted on taxpayers to pay his salary or his pension.
I would be surprised if Sandvall comes to be regarded as the slickest candidate in this race, but slick seems to be wearing thin with Colorado voters. None of the new statewide officials we elected in 2010 -- neither Hickenlooper, nor Treasurer Walker Stapleton or Secretary of State Scott Gessler, both Republicans -- could be described as slick. And Denver's new mayor, Michael Hancock, won his 2011 election by beating the gladhanding and gregarious insider Chris Romer in a landslide that shocked the political establishment. So much for slick.
Perhaps that is where CPP and I agree, both empirically and philosophically. Voters want and deserve genuinely new leadership, not just another round of politicians who act like the ones who got us into our ongoing local and national fiscal turmoil.
Where we disagree, apparently, is whether to cut Jude Sandvall from the list of rising stars in this new environment. In my view, it's far too soon to do that.]]>Republican Shakeup Begs the Question: Who Will Become GOP's Election Lawyer?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8426802011-03-30T15:12:05-04:002011-05-30T05:12:01-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/Republican Scott Gessler announced his candidacy for Colorado Secretary of State last year, his party's strategists should have cheered. Instead, they pouted, arguably for good reason. While Gessler possessed the political instincts and solid resume crucial to take down likable incumbent Bernie Buscher, his victory would leave a dramatic void in future election battles. Then Gessler won.
GOP leaders quickly scrambled to find candidates capable of filling Gessler's shoes. After all, who else had the acumen, experience, and constitutionally grounded philosophy to effectively represent the center-right in future election-related litigation? Matters got even more complicated last week when emerging contender, Ryan Call, a Denver attorney, was elected as state chair of the Republican Party.
By contrast, the state's top Democratic election attorney - Mark Grueskin - has been content to stay put as a highly-paid private attorney. The right has seen a bumpier road. Attorney Tim Tymkovich led the way for Republicans until he accepted a federal judicial appointment in 2003, at which point Gessler was well-suited to take the baton, frequently going toe-to-toe with Grueskin over the years and often prevailing against Grueskin's union-funded clients.
As I've disclosed previously, Gessler was my go-to guy for all things elections, representing various campaigns I led from 2004 to 2008. I cheered his election night victory, knowing his win would mean good things for the non-partisan causes I most often find myself involved in, including issue campaigns and ballot initiatives. Thus far, Gessler has acted true to form, taking on county clerks and the legislature to protect ballot integrity and election-related funding.
So who does the GOP turn to now? Unlike Grueskin's well-funded post, Gessler's successor should anticipate the financial pain associated with representing conservative causes. Despite flattering stereotypes that paint Republicans as flush with cash, campaigns often lack the resources to pay their attorneys even a fraction of what a typical client would be expected to pay.
Another note of caution: It ain't easy navigating campaign finance and tax laws while matching wits and banging heads with Grueskin and the Attorney General's best (i.e., AG legend Maurie Knaizer and now-Supreme Court Justice Monica Marquez), not to mention well-funded attack dogs like the left's Colorado Ethics Watch. Finally, you need a little junk yard snarl; you're in this to kick some ass - not be friends with the Colorado Lawyer's Committee.
Gessler certainly had the guts to take on all of the above. As an attorney myself, and one who represents clients engaged in a diversity of election-related and politically-centered disputes, I've come to realize that in the absence of Gessler, the center-right may just find that it needs a cadre of lawyers willing to put aside firm rivalries and personal ego to get the job done in 2012 and on.
So here's my take on the GOP's Top 10 prospects. Let the scramble begin!
1. Lisa Sahli. Interestingly enough, the center-right may just have to admit that its most devoted and effective counsel comes courtesy of Killmer, Lane and Newman, Denver's best known liberal civil rights firm. As one of several plaintiffs in a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging recent legislatively-imposed restrictions to petition rights, I've been stunned by the tireless devotion of Sahli and the firm's other attorneys. Sahli is a true believer in protecting the voice of the people in the political process, even when the voices she's protecting may not match up with her own ideology. Her firm is taking the case on contingency, and despite being buried in a seemingly endless list of discovery requests and depositions courtesy of Grueskin, remains as devoted as ever. Already, Sahli and co. have obtained injunctions striking down legislative provisions most concerning to plaintiffs.
2. Shayne Madsen. Madsen is a known entity and she's seen some real battles, impressively always coming back for more. As Jon Caldara and the non-profit Independence Institute's go-to gal, she can only dream of the fancy paychecks Grueskin pulls down for similar work. Fortunately, since she comes from a big firm, she may be able to stay in the mix for the long haul, possibly doing so as part of her firm's commitment to pro-bono and public interest causes. Madsen plays well with others and has been a great resource in helping Sahli strategize in the aforementioned civil rights lawsuit, which interestingly now technically pits the Independence Institute (as the named plaintiff) against Gessler's own office.
3. Jon Anderson. Anderson is sharp and has good connections; as general counsel to former Governor Owens he's BFF with the Owens crowd. That could help or hurt in various GOP circles. He has pieced together a solid client portfolio that may help him work through possible handicaps. He's not a litigator, at least not to the level Gessler was prior to taking office. He may also struggle to convince the top dogs at his firm, Holland and Hart, to risk the firm's well laid strategy of playing nice with pro-government corporate clients by representing those pesky, bomb-throwing Republicans who rarely get invited to well-heeled cocktail parties - especially when activist clients won't draw top dollar to the firm.
4. Katie Biber. Biber recently moved to Colorado and she practices federal campaign finance law with the best. That means, however, a gazillion dollars an hour for the insatiable Patton Boggs money-machine. To state-level GOP insiders, her pedigree and price tag may play against her. If she can fight through the big firm practice of limiting associate exposure to the court room, she could develop the kind of fast-paced, Wild West election lawyer skills that could ensure she becomes a serious player. That is if she wants to.
5. Geoff Blue. Blue is an unlikely candidate, so we'll place him in the "intrigue" category. Prior to serving as John Suthers' deputy Attorney General, Blue is uniquely situated in that he actually had a decade of real, substantial litigation experience. If he goes back into private practice and wants to practice election law, he would be a force. But there's a big question. Does he really want to thump Democrats? While I disagree with Blue on all things medical marijuana, I've also known him to be as fair and ethical as possible in his role in perpetuating Suthers' big government law enforcement agenda. He may just be too nice for the job.
6. Dan Domenico. Another bit of intrigue. Talk about a charmed career. Domenico went straight from a prestigious clerkship to Colorado's Solicitor General. Having visited him time and again at the Secretary of State's election-related hearings, I've seen him do a top-notch job. If he decides to wade into private practice and bang heads, he would be a force to be reckoned with. Then again, he might choose to be a professor. Given Denver's lethargic legal market, who could blame him?
7. Jason Dunn. Back to the contenders. Dunn has a great pedigree - former clerk to Justice Coats and Deputy Attorney General under Suthers. He's worked closely with Gessler, Westfall (see below), and Anderson (with whom he's close friends), and he also has some litigation experience. Plus, he's ambitious. What remains to be seen is how far he can go in Republican circles after working under Steve Farber, one of Denver's most respected big guns (who as the force behind Denver's 2009 Democratic National Convention, has also become a personality greeted by skeptics within both major parties' faithful for his willingness to cross party lines if he thinks it will help the causes and candidates he supports). Not a bad trait in the least, but not exactly the reputation Dunn wants to inherit should he seek to be seen as the state's tenacious GOP litigator.
8. Rob McGuire. McGuire could be the sleeper here. He hails from the Bill Owens Crowd, is sharp as a tack, and has been mixing it up lately with some good cases. He doesn't suffer from Big Firm Syndrome. And even though he is not a pure litigator, he's impressed many with his chops. To get into the game in major way, he'll have to do what Gessler did: take on grassroots clients at a steep discount. While he still has yet to win a big one, he's got incredible promise. Mind you, Grueskin still maintains a solid reputation after losing plenty to Gessler. A solid media spin machine never hurts and McGuire is bright enough to construct one of his own.
9. Mario Nicolais. As Gessler's long-time associate, Nicolais inherited much of Gessler's practice and has the chance to parlay this into a top-dog position. Like Anderson (and Call, for that matter) we haven't seen him hit the center ring with election lawsuits. Yet. Noting this, he has a solid co-conspirator at Gessler's former firm in Steve Klenda--a rock-solid commercial litigator and stalwart Republican. The duo may just have what it takes to fill Gessler's shoes. We shall see.
10. Bob Hoban. In the small world of Colorado politics, I have to give a shameless plug to one of my own, Bob Hoban, a partner at my firm, Hoban & Feola. Hoban hails from the same firm that once employed Gessler, Dunn and Anderson, and which still employs Westfall (see below). A wunderkind of sorts, snatching high profile eminent domain and medical marijuana cases from heavy hitters and 17th Street big boys. I met him years ago as we trudged through the title setting process for a grassroots ballot initiative and I've seen firsthand his ability to build ideologically diverse coalitions and effectively use earned media to fend off bogus election-related challenges. His libertarian instincts contrast strongly with others on this list and his proven track record of putting overzealous city attorneys in their place could position him well for taking on the Democrats' best. Also a benefit, catch him on a cause that gets him fired up and he may just give your grassroots coalition a solid discount.
OTHER CONTENDERS
There are certainly other notable potential contenders not mentioned on this list. Take John Zakhem, for instance. Ironically enough, he was my election law professor at the University of Denver. His interest in the game, however, seems to have faded over the last few years. By no means, however, count him out as he could play a crucial role in protecting center-right campaigns and candidates. Likewise, Richard Westfall has one of Denver's most solid election-related legal resumes. I've seen his work first hand, having hired him in 2008 to fight off bogus election complaints. Westfall is your guy if you've got the time to take an issue all the way the state's (or maybe even nation's) top court. He's a constitutional expert and as a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and he knows more than just about anyone in the state when it comes to appeals. He is not, however, the guy you want if you need to squeeze out a victory in a period of days or weeks leading up to an election. He has also suffered through major firm fractures when his prior firm, Hale Friesen, split into two, losing multiple rising stars (as demonstrated through this list) in the process.
Inevitably, the list above will invoke skepticism from those questioning why no attorneys from outside Denver were named. To be blunt: you've got to show up at the game if you want to play. Election litigation promises litigation on crack. Outcomes can be won or lost minutes or days. For some pre-election challenges, weeks or even months are a luxury lawyers just don't have. While geography makes it tough for those outside Denver to keep up, Colorado Springs' Bob Gardner may just have a shot down the road to join the fray, as could Erik Groves of Grand Junction.
Like Tymkovich on the federal Bench, or Gessler in the executive branch, Gardner faces a second strike. He's a state legislator, which limits the issues he can represent. But don't count him out down the road. He's got tremendous experience and he keeps things local in the future, it could be a good thing. If any city needs its own full-blown expert in initiative challenges, municipal elections or campaign finance mandates, it's the Springs. Gardner could fit the bill perfectly.
Denver would be lucky to have Groves. He's an intriguing prospect made more so after he effectively exposed the laughable campaign finance practices of 2010 GOP gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes. While he did get tied up in an ugly (though thankfully not lengthy) lobbying scandal, it should be viewed as a forgivable rookie error by an otherwise young, rising star who gets it. The next part of "getting it"? Move to Denver. Harsh but true.
Jessica P. Corry (www.JessicaCorry.com) is a Denver attorney, writer and political strategist. ]]>American "Exceptionalism" Led By Example, Not Simply Forcetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8262382011-02-21T17:21:39-05:002011-05-25T18:35:25-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/
My legal education requires me to stipulate facts at the outset. As Americans, we enjoy the greatest liberal democratic political system devised by man, one deeply rooted in individual liberty. We benefit from a tattered but mostly intact free market economy, which has provided more than adequate food, clothing and shelter, not just for the rich, but for nearly everyone from a relatively small underclass to a huge middle class.
Indeed, we are an exceptional nation. But this exceptionalism splinters, and does so quickly, when we move from serving as a shining example for others to follow, and instead turn toward enforcing our will and our way of life on the world. It is at this point, we lose our moral authority, sacrificing American lives and critical tax dollars in the process. To dismiss resistance from our foes as a byproduct of ignorance reflects only our own.
This point is made in an exceptional essay at Reason.com, by Terry Michael: "The End of The American Century." Michael reminds readers it was 70 years ago on February 17, 1941, when Henry R. Luce, the Life magazine publisher, coined the phrase, "The American Century," twenty years before President Dwight D. Eisenhower cautioned Americans against the threats to liberty of a "military industrial complex."
"The contrast between Eisenhower's historically informed wisdom and Luce's jingoistic missionary zeal," Michael, a libertarian Democrat and former party strategist, writes, "offers an opportunity for serious discourse beyond the empty choices presented by bloated government liberals and big government conservatives. Both 'sides' pretend they want to downsize the fat federal beast, just as they both sell interventionist foreign policy with flag-waving 'support the troops' propaganda." (Full disclosure: I am a 2000 graduate of Terry Michael's "Politics & Journalism Semester" in Washington, which teaches futures political reporters about politics, and welcomes young libertarian and conservative reporters, like I was, as well as liberals.)
In his piece, Michael takes on the K Street lobbyists who "profiteer from a permanent state of empire-building and elective warfare." Republican neo-conservative and Democratic liberal-internationalist critics will doubtless proclaim Michael an isolationist in a global world. But his argument is not one against engagement with other nations. It is a plea for American modesty in dealings with the other six or seven billion people who also call our planet home.
If there is one thing I learned from my days working as an aide in the U.S. Senate, it is that I have much to learn about other nations and cultures. Our media and our way of life have penetrated every corner of the globe. Each misstep is publicized with zeal. To make matters worse, non-state actors and roving terrorist regimes have created one of the most unpredictable, unstable geopolitical environments in history. Any misapplication of military might can have devastating effects on the future of humanity.
America didn't become great by sitting on the sidelines. But the same instincts that sent soldiers into Iraq after 9/11 can now be employed to re-examine our national security priorities. Isolationism simply isn't a choice.
As Michael notes: "Those of us blessed with the classical liberal meme stream inherited from the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason can do the human race a favor by using the Eisenhower and Luce anniversaries as a teaching moment. We can illuminate just how much liberty has been lost due to today's permanent state of warfare, which not only Eisenhower in 1961, but James Madison two centuries earlier, warned against. We can define how Luce's pre-war jingoistic 'American Century' proclamation, in his immodestly named Life magazine, contributed to a post-war sense of New World entitlement. Luce's conceit encouraged Americans to think of ourselves as God's policemen to the world, and to obsess about our right not only to whatever our rapidly expanding middle-class incomes could buy, but also to what politicians could hand out via federal, state, and local taxes and a massive deficit-spending spree."
Once a war hawk, I find myself increasingly more concerned about the prospect of raising our children in a nation where, at birth, they were handed a $45,000 bill as their share of the national debt. I'm worried about a multi-billion dollar drug war that only encourages international drug cartels to continue their violent campaigns. I'm terrified when I listen to my own friends, veterans of our Iraq and Afghanistan efforts, come home disillusioned and without faith in our nation's foreign policy strategy.
In a bipartisan essay in the Washington Post , Congressmen James P. McGovern, D-Mass, and Walter B. Jones, R-NC, argue that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are "likely to total $4 trillion to $6 trillion." They ask Democratic congressmen, "where is the liberal outrage?" And they challenge GOP and Tea Party Republicans, "Fiscal conservatives should be howling that this war is being financed with borrowed money."
An exceptional but more modest 21st Century America can reduce the burden of debt on our grandchildren and, as Michael writes, increase individual liberty by putting "the individual, not our nation-state, at the center of the universe."
So what are our options now? Can we pack up and leave the Middle East without leaving behind devastating consequences? These are critical questions we must critically examine. To get there, we must unite as liberals and conservatives to start asking serious questions about military spending.
We can no longer rest easy, relying on a century of military greatness to reassure ourselves that the future is ours to keep. It's ours to lose. Let's get lean and feisty once again.
Jessica P. Corry is a Denver attorney and political strategist. She serves as special counsel to Hoban & Feola, LLC and is a Robert Novak Journalism Fellow at the Phillips Foundation in Washington, D.C.]]>Denver Gambles Taxpayer Dollars With Proposed Marijuana Changestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8204862011-02-08T17:37:24-05:002011-05-25T18:30:24-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/
Imagine this: you open your mail one day to find one of those dreaded photo radar tickets. You look at the date on the citation and remember the point where you saw the flash bulb go off. It couldn't have been you, you thought. After all, you were only driving 24 miles an hour. The speed limit was clearly posted as 25-mph.
What gives, you thought? So you appealed the ticket. The city's response: we don't care how fast you were driving that day. We lowered the limit to 20-mph the following week. You need to abide by the new rules.
Sounds crazy, right? But this is exactly what is going on with Denver's medical marijuana industry. In most cases state and federal constitutional protections prohibit local governments from retroactively enforcing new regulations on businesses who had previously complied with the old standards. If the new regulations shut you down, the government needs to cough up some cash to make you whole.
It is exactly this principle at issue in a Denver District Court case, where on behalf of a medical marijuana caregiver and his patients, we are challenging the city's decision to shut him down. While the caregiver was lawfully operating prior to the city council passing an ordinance regulating the industry this time last year, the city is now arguing that he can't comply with new requirements concerning distances required between two dispensaries. The city's surveyor and ours disagree over a couple hundred feet. We say our client is just over the required 1,000 feet required. The city says he's just under.
But we shouldn't even have to go here. Prior to forcing our client to shut down last month, the city had allowed and accepted the tax payments he sent in to the city's treasury department. The fire department came by and said hello. Zoning officials signed off on the appropriate permit required for dispensaries. Even the state and federal government cash his checks and granted him tax identification numbers.
The city's argument: prior to its 2010 ordinance, medical marijuana dispensaries were not licensed by the city. Therefore, dispensaries have gained no right to continue operating. While it's true that the city requires licenses for several dozen industries, it also lets a multitude of others go without. Take lawyers, for instance. Our only licensing comes at the state level.
In multiple conversations with council members, state regulatory agencies and the media, we've gone on record noting our above concerns, which involve not just our client's fate but also that of city taxpayers, who in these tough economic times, shouldn't be left to foot the bill for questionable litigation or bureaucratic costs required to shut down viable businesses. This is also about the state constitution. A government powerful enough to shut down politically controversial businesses on a whim is one too powerful to ignore.
Late last year, council members began debating amendments to its 2010 medical marijuana ordinance. We were greeted by a handful of responsive and innovative council members aware of, and committed to, their obligations to follow the law. Councilman Charlie Brown and Council President Chris Nevitt introduced language seeking to abolish the ordinance's retroactive enforcement mandates, replacing it will new language fair to both new and old industry participants.
Unfortunately, other council members, including Judy Montoya, took a different approach. They not only affirm their support of retroactive power, but seek to expand it to wholesale marijuana operations currently recognized by the city as operational.
On Valentine's Day, the full council will meet to debate a revised set of amendments that neglect to strike the language currently at issue in the lawsuit referenced above. What a way to spend the holiday. If the implications of council's potential actions weren't so serious, I might even be able to conclude here by begging its members to have a heart. Instead, I'll close by encouraging them to talk with Nevitt and Brown. To call me or other land use lawyers. To do their own research. To do whatever it takes for them to realize what is at stake here.
While medical marijuana may remain a hotly debated issue, the societal view that our constitution should protect all of us from abusive government is not. Forget about pot and focus instead on what really matters: when government gives any lawful business the green light, we must call out officials who now falsely insist that the light was red.
Jessica P. Corry (JessicaCorry.com) is a Denver land use attorney with Hoban & Feola, LLC, where she serves as special counsel.]]>Tea Time for America's City Councils?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8181432011-02-03T12:12:57-05:002011-05-25T18:30:24-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/
It is at our city council meetings and on our county commissions where corruption and ineptitude often goes most unnoticed. Republicans and Democrats, while often well intentioned, mutually find themselves sucked into the allure of dishing out corporate welfare through tax subsidies, violating due process, and enjoying lavish travel and entertainment budgets. Outside of these perks and the six-figure salaries for council members in major cities, many local part-time posts can garner less than $10,000 a year.
Given all of this, perhaps it's no surprise that Surprise, Arizona has caught itself in quite a mess. Just a decade ago, the northern Phoenix suburb sleepy town had a population of just 30,000. It's the kind of place where retirees ride their golf carts down the street on the way from their patio homes to one of the many local golf courses. Then everything changed. By 2010, the city's population had exploded to 115,000, a byproduct of the nation's housing boom fueled by easy access to tax revenue and consumer credit.
The good days didn't last long, however. Recently, Surprise took top honors as the nation's foreclosure capital. The taxpayer funds that had been used to build a state-of-the-art city building are now nowhere to be found. Half-built neighborhoods, including that of my sister, Joy Grainger, and her family, are now the norm. More than 1,000 homes across the city now stand vacant due to foreclosure.
As second in command for the city's lobbying team, Joy was on the inside when the city's budget began to crumble under the weight of its sudden economic woes. Last March, the city manager was canned. By December, city leaders were forced to admit they'd misappropriated $73 million, funds for which they cannot account today.
Despite pressure from the Arizona Republic and local activists, the city is now refusing to release a report chronicling specifics about the missing money.
Concerned about possible misuse of funds in her own department, Joy spoke up, advising city leadership and the HR Director that she'd witnessed significant overcharges in reimbursement requests and alleged improper action on city contracts. For blowing the whistle, she was belittled and transferred to another department. The city didn't appreciate Joy's tenacity or honesty.
Joy could have packed up and left town. Others certainly did, walking away from mortgages with the ease of investors who'd bought homes sight unseen. But she didn't. She dug in her heels and braced for impact. She ran for her neighborhood's Homeowners' Association. She won. Her leadership mantra: HOAs and local government shouldn't be about telling how people to live their lives, but rather about holding people accountable to their communal and financial obligations. She sought out other work opportunities and was quickly snapped up by a respected national non-profit organization.
If the Surprise City Council took this step as some sort of admission of defeat, they were wrong. At what was supposed to be an ordinary City Council meeting a few weeks ago, Joy took to the microphone as the council discussed a proposed whistleblower ordinance presented as a way to protect employees like Joy in the future.
"I was a whistle-blower and you all let me down," she told council members as she looked them in the eye. As reported by a newspaper reporter in attendance, she also said the city was regularly made aware of the "tremendously horrible" position she was in.
Joy walked out of the meeting with her pride, and shortly after was inundated with supportive emails from her former co-workers glad that someone had finally spoken up publicly. She then announced her candidacy for city council.
This is a pursuit full of risks. But Joy gets it. There must have been something in the water in the house where I grew up. While our childhood experience was far from that of the Kennedy or Bush political dynasties, two of the four kids who grew up in my home would go onto run for political office. It is now my big sister leading the charge to hold local governments--too often forgotten in our national debate about government corruption and spending--accountable to taxpayers who too often now don't have a penny to spare.
While my own 2004 bid for Colorado Senate, which I launched at the age of 25, fell just short of taking down a two-term incumbent, prospects for my big sister now look good. Regardless of whether she prevails in her own election, she has an opportunity to mobilize citizens of all ideological persuasions to take a second look at the city hall closest to home.
As Joy's ongoing crusade shows, our current economic crisis is not just about shining a spotlight on Washington's wasteful spending. It's about following the trail of every taxpayer dollar that lands in the checking accounts of thousands of American cities across our nation.
Jessica P. Corry is a Denver attorney and political strategist. She serves as Special Counsel to Hoban & Feola, LLC, as a policy analyst with the Independence Institute, and is currently completing a book titled Victim Nation under the Phillips Foundation's Robert Novak Fellowship.]]>CU's New Logo a Big No Notag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8160032011-01-30T14:31:15-05:002011-05-25T18:30:24-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/
As the University of Colorado tells it, it needed the new logo in a bad way. Its four campuses had a "hodgepodge of logos," leaving the institution at a branding disadvantage that led to a marketplace confusion.
"It's important for the University of Colorado to be consistent and coordinated with its messages and images," CU spokesman McConnellogue told the Boulder Daily Camera. "In a world where people are bombarded by images and messages, we can't afford to be fragmented and disconnected in how we present ourselves."
As a graduate of CU's Boulder campus, an active supporter of CU's various athletic and artistic efforts, and an appointee to a CU diversity commission, I never really saw the problem.
But even if we accept McConnellogue's explanation as gospel, there are many questions that remain. Why, for instance did the "rebranding" effort take two years? Why did the university hire an international company to design the logo when it could have utilized enterprising students from any one of the university's business, communications or design departments to get the job done?
McConnellogue maintains that the delay is the result in multiple changes in university leadership and defends the cost, saying funds came from interest earned on a university fund managed through the president's office, and that no tuition, donor or state funds were used to pay for the project.
Maybe he misses the larger point. Over the last several years, CU has sent its taxpayer-funded lobbyists to the state Capitol to plead for more state money. It has endorsed and supported significant back-to-back-to-back tuition and cost increases for students at all of its campuses.
If CU is so broke it needs to balance its books on the backs of students, it shouldn't be lavishly spending on something as silly as a logo.
On the day after CU publicly released the new logo, I posted the news on my Facebook page. The response was swift and nearly universal: this was the wrong thing for CU to do. There was even a sense of disbelief and betrayal amongst friends who, like me, bleed the school colors of gold and black.
The naysayers included a close friend who, as a CU student, actively supported efforts to increase alumni involvement. One of my favorite CU political science professors noted that the funds could have paid for seven tenure-track faculty positions for an entire year "or if you want to translate to undergraduate courses, it would pay for adjuncts to teach approximately 120 courses (assuming semester pay of between $5,500 and $6000)." Others offered to design the logo for as little as $500.
When asked how faculty might react, the Camera reported that "Boulder Faculty Assembly chairman Joseph Rosse, a business professor, expects faculty members' reactions will be fairly ambivalent. Since the logos haven't changed much, Rosse said, it won't have a huge impact on faculty members aside from switching out letterheads and business cards."
I had to read that twice. The logos "haven't changed that much." For $780,000. The Boulder Weekly summed up its disappointment as follows:
Now it's nine months [after CU's own self-imposed deadline to get the job done], and CU has finally released this long-awaited logo. We were really expecting something impressive, considering how long it took and how much money was spent. Maybe a new, intricate, interlocking CU in 3-D, embossed in real gold?
Um, no. The new logo looks pretty much like the old one. And the groundbreaking change in university nomenclature? Calling CU-Boulder the "University of Colorado Boulder." Yes, that's right, no hyphen, no "at," no comma. You would have to pay even more if you actually wanted to hire people who know how to use the English language, apparently.
CU, like most public institutions across the nation, argues that universities become beacons for local job creation. But not here. CU used Landor, an "international design and marketing firm based in California" to get the job done. McConnellogue remains committed to the idea that the investment will pay off. "We not only expect to recoup the cost of the project, but we expect to have a substantial return on our investment beyond that initial money we paid," he added.
But how exactly do we quantify this and will any such analysis include the lost benefits that could have been realized had CU spent the funds on a more worthwhile cause?
The buck should stop--or make that all 780,000 of them--should stop with CU's elected Board of Regents. Not a single one voted no, with only Regent Joe Neguse, a Boulder Democrat, abstaining from taking a position.
CU has played a role in many of my life's most lasting memories. I enjoyed football Saturdays as a kid, spent four of the most incredible years of my life in Boulder, and bought my children CU t-shirts before they were even born. The logo looked fine to me.
Upon hearing of this wasteful spending, however, I will have to think twice before sending my kids there. Not because I don't love CU, but rather because I can't trust its leaders to spend the funds it already receives responsibly.
Jessica P. Corry is a Denver attorney and writer. She serves as Special Counsel to Hoban & Feola, LLC, a policy analyst with the Independence Institute, and is currently completing a book titled "Victim Nation" under the Phillips Foundation's Robert Novak Fellowship.
]]>Elected Officials Have Mortgages, Tootag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8126472011-01-22T17:24:04-05:002011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/onto the story Friday, you would have thought Scott Gessler had just orchestrated Bernie Maddoff's escape from federal prison. Just two weeks after being sworn in as Colorado's Secretary of State, he has come under fire after he voluntarily, publicly and ethically disclosed his plan to take on a second job, one that would include part-time contract legal work with his old firm.
The reason for his announcement: he's got bills to pay. I know. Shocking. You mean we actually elected an attorney to statewide office who isn't independently wealthy? Yes. How refreshing.
For full disclosure, I know Scott well and consider him one of the brightest minds I've ever met. We've spent years as neighbors and in 2008, when a statewide campaign I was running became the target of frivolous legal claims, he represented us at a reduced hourly rate. After getting all claims dismissed, he then allowed us extra time, free of any penalties or interest, to pay the bills we'd rung up after money got tight close to the election.
While Colorado Common Cause has, at times over the years, been a positive voice for election transparency, it is now attacking Gessler. As The Denver Post reports, Common Cause's Elena Nuñez sees Scott's plan as ripe for potential conflicts of interest. "To the extent he is working for his old firm and his old firm is dealing with the Secretary of State's office, it creates a real conflict," Nuñez said. "In some cases it may just be the appearance of conflict."
But Nuñez's analysis fails to consider several critical points. First, when it comes to any legal work he handles, Scott will not take on any matter coming before the Secretary of State. Instead, he will handle transactional matters far away from the election-related issues his public office oversees.
Second, Nuñez neglects a well-tried system of rules, checks and balances that protects against alleged or realized conflicts. Under the Colorado Bar Association peer-monitoring system (not unlike the system monitoring behavior of public officials and legislators), the CBA has issued multiple rules governing the obligations of working attorneys who also serve in elected office. They do not prohibit, in any way, the type of arrangement Scott seeks, and in fact, provide a framework for attorneys to follow to ensure that ethical breaches are avoided.
Common Cause should take comfort in knowing that unlike most attorneys, Scott now faces additional scrutiny. In today's world of adversarial litigation, opportunistic lawyers eager to gain ground against Scott's clients can now more easily take swipes regarding perceived, imagined conflicts.
If Scott's second job presents a problem, then we better also start talking with the multitude of lawyers and teachers who now serve under the Capitol's golden dome as our state lawmakers. In what has become an annual tradition each legislative session, former or current members of the state's teachers' unions introduce bills designed to directly benefit union causes, who by the way, respond by pumping millions of dollars into legislator campaign coffers each year.
Terrence Carroll, the recently term-limited Speaker of the Colorado House, maintained his legal practice while in office, and is now a heavy hitter at a major 17th Street law firm. He was joined by nearly 20 of the General Assembly's 100 lawmakers, who also maintained part-time or full-time law practices while serving last session or in the current one.
While every elected official has a duty to recuse him or herself for legitimate conflicts of interest pertaining to specific legislation, attacks like Common Cause's will serve only to further discourage ordinary people from running for public office.
Maybe Scott should have charged clients higher hourly rates or exorbitant interest rates on late payments. Maybe he should have cut staff during the recession to ensure he'd have more money in his pocket at the end of the day. And he wouldn't have to take on a second job now, if he'd just cut his pro bono and public interest client load when he discovered it wasn't financially lucrative. He could have married wealthy. If he'd just done all of the above, he'd have a nice reserve of cash to live off of while serving our state today.
But he didn't. And we should be glad he didn't. As a fellow Republican, I actively supported Scott's Secretary of State campaign, hosted a fundraiser and donated money. I did so, in large part, because Scott is different. While he's an astute election law attorney, he's the furthest thing from being another political hack.
Just one example: while he passionately disagrees with my support for medical marijuana rights, the constitution comes first in his book, and he has never hesitated to lend an ear over the years as I've bombarded him with questions about possible violations against pro-marijuana petition rights efforts. He has helped me protect the voice of other so-called liberal causes in the political process, and he has been there as a voice for grassroots muckraking journalists investigating the bad behavior of politicians of either major party. Lest we also forget that this is the man who got the Green Party's Ralph Nader on the ballot as a presidential candidate just a few years ago.
While some may balk at the suggestion that Scott's $68,500 salary should be ample to cover his obligations as the sole breadwinner for himself, his wife, their young daughter, and his mother, this attack also misses the point. If we nix Gessler for his chosen profession, then we should also take a closer look at teachers and others leading our state as elected officials.
If every aspiring candidate took Nunez's advise, we'd see our state's highest posts filled by the retired or independently wealthy. Certainly, this can't be what we want. And while lawyers certainly aren't the most popular creatures in society, we should encourage those who have a proven record of knowledge and experience with election law and public policy to take their shot at the ballot.
For now, Scott remains committed to his plan to work about 20 hours a month, over weekends and at nights, for Hackstaff Law Group, previously known as Hackstaff Gessler. As he told the Post, "[The added income] will be well less than half of what I earn as secretary of state. This isn't a huge income source for me, but it's something I need."
Believe it or not, elected officials have mortgages. Lawyers, too. And I've yet to hear a single decent reason why Scott Gessler shouldn't be permitted to take on a second job to help pay his.
Jessica P. Corry (www.JessicaCorry.com) is a Denver attorney and political strategist. She serves as special counsel to Hoban & Feola, LLC, and as a policy analyst with the Independence Institute. She is also a Robert Novak Fellow at the Phillips Foundation, an award under which she is completing her book.
]]>Don't Tread On Me (Or My Bumper): The Latest License Plate Debatetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8039022011-01-03T17:38:38-05:002011-05-25T18:20:30-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/
Once upon a time, American license plates were a sign of pride and joy for the residents of each state--advertising to newcomers, proclaiming all the great virtues and adventures just waiting to be discovered. While I'm slightly biased, the simplicity of my home state's "Colorful Colorado" was near the top of the pack.
The clean outline of green mountains against a white backdrop told tourists what they needed to know. We have a lot of really tall mountains, including 54 that stand over 14,000 feet tall, to be exact. Alaska's "Last Frontier" plates were a big hit, too, as were California's blue and yellow plates, recognizable coast to coast.
Those were the days.
Then someone got the smart idea to make money off these plates. And everything went to hell in a hand basket. Colorado now has over 100 options, including "Respect Life" plates that were originally pitched as a way of honoring those killed in the Columbine High School shootings.
These plates have proven incredibly controversial, with opponents raging mad because they allege the motto is really just an undercover attempt to discredit abortion rights. While more than half of Colorado voters self-identify as "pro-choice," enough of them have plunked down $25 a year for the plates to generate more than $2 million for state coffers and educational causes.
Supporters of Washington, D.C.'s "Taxation Without Representation" plates practically rioted in the streets when earlier in this decade when former President George W. Bush demanded that the plates be removed from his presidential motorcade. How could the leader of the Free World not see the wisdom of the plate's message, so eloquently designed to awaken Congress to the fact that the district's 600,000 residents were provided not a single voting member in either chamber?
Initially, specialty plates sound like a great idea. Support a good cause, draw attention to your alma mater, or if you're really sneaky, get the state to endorse your political agenda. Right there. On a state-issued plate. I asked one friend I knew to be pro-choice why she selected the "Respect Life" plates. Her response: she thought they were pretty.
What's the problem with the state (and some pretty worthy non-profits too) making a few bucks off a fun plate? Well, as it turns out, a lot.
License plates are supposed to help us identify vehicles. In a worst case scenario, they help us find that evil carjacker or drive-by shooter. But how can we do this when even the most reasonable person doesn't stand a chance against the thousands of logos and emblems that now cover our plates. Ohio's breast cancer plate features a pink ribbon, just like Colorado's, and for also just $25, it's a pretty good deal.
Until you consider that Ohio alone offers nearly 30 different university license plates, and dozens more that endorse everything from your college sorority to your favorite professional sports team. Like bald eagles? They've got one for you. Believe in autism awareness? Done. Boy Scouts and "amateur" radio can also be recognized.
Then things got even more out of control. Yes, you guessed it. Lawyers got involved. As I sat in a cab waging battle with Mumbai traffic, I came across a December article from the Economist offering more detail.
As it turns out, while we can handle plates proclaiming the greatness of the football team we most despise, some plates are just too controversial for others to handle. As the Economist reports, Texas has authorized a "Don't tread on me" plate, once simply an ode to the revolutionary-era Gadsden flag first flown in 1775. With its rattlesnake coil, perhaps it's intimidating to some.
With Virginia and Nevada considering adopting similar plates for purchase of their own, critics argue that it's an political endorsement of the so-called Tea Party movement, the ragtag team of conservative and libertarian activists credited for overtaking Congress from its prior Democratic leadership. It is, God forbid, political advertising on state property.
The U.S. Supreme Court first took up this license plate drama in 1977, when through Wooley v. Maynard, the Court held that requiring plates bearing New Hampshire's slogan of "Live Free or Die" violated a citizen's right to be free from government-mandated expression, instructing state leaders that they would need to provide an alternative version for those against the plate's message.
Ask and you shall receive. A little more than three decades later, the average American can pick from an almost endless sea of options. The question remains, however: if this same citizen were asked to identify plates based on their state origin, how many could he get right?
If people really feel the need to advocate on their rear bumper, they have options other than plates. They're called bumper stickers. I've pasted one or two on the rear of various vehicles over the years. I got my message out there without giving the state a single dime, instead directing extra cash to the non-profits I support in my own private life. I don't want the state to endorse your political viewpoint and this also means it shouldn't have to endorse mine. Especially on state property, which plates in most states are.
While various studies attempt to predict a driver's level of aggression as it correlates to his affinity for bumper stickers or the type of vanity license plate he or she selects, such analysis simply can't hold up. Not today, when the minivan that just passed you is being driven by a breast cancer survivor whose husband, an avid Bengels fan, joins her in the front, and their son, a Boy Scout, chats with the autistic neighborhood kid from the back seat. Which plate shall she choose? Hopefully, none at all.
Assuming her state still provides a standard-issued version.
Jessica P. Corry (www.JessicaCorry.com) is a Denver attorney and political strategist. She is also a Phillips Foundation Robert Novak Fellow.]]>The Poetic Injustice of Ward Churchilltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7970752010-12-15T11:55:20-05:002011-05-25T18:20:30-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/
Regardless of one's view of Churchill, you've got to give him kudos. The man can stay on message.
He has never once strayed from his commitment to fighting against the Man (while also curiously disclaiming himself as one). Now, unless the Colorado Supreme Court takes up his cause, the blue suits in the boardroom may get the last laugh.
Fortunately, not all reporters were asleep at the wheel. As Law Week reported this month, the Colorado Court of Appeals' decision to deny Churchill's reinstatement as a CU professor could significantly impact the way courts treat public employment cases in this state.
As University of Denver law professor Alan Chen told Law Week, the development could create a vehicle for public employers, including universities, to gain greater immunity from their actions:
Judicial immunity is absolute, so where it applies, it doesn't matter whether the decision makers violated a constitutional right, or how clear that violation might be, the person whose rights are violated simply cannot get judicial relief. This part of the opinion is troubling, because most government employment decisions (or any employment decisions) are not typically made through judicial or quasi-judicial bodies. But the Churchill decision may encourage government executives to set up judicial-like bodies to review constitutionally questionable employment decisions to protect themselves from suits in future cases.
CU began investigating Churchill in 2005 after a blogger discovered and posted online a post-9/11 essay of Churchill's titled, "Some People Bush Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." Calls for Churchill's firing were immense and immediate. Widely questioned for his thesis that American foreign policy may provoked the attacks on New York and Washington (where I was working as a press secretary at the time), he characterized victims as the "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire," referring to them as "little Eichmanns" who naively went to work each day in furtherance of America's evil ways.
While I question much of Churchill's thesis, my greater concern was not about the viewpoints he expressed but that it even took the essay for Churchill to be investigated in the first place. In 2005, I co-authored an analysis of CU's legal options. Titled "No License To Lie: Standards For Impartial Judgment in the Ward Churchill Investigation," I laid out many legitimate reasons for termination, including demonstrated professional incompetence, his neglect of duty, resume fraud and his flagrant, persistent failure to meet minimum standards of professional integrity.
It wasn't until 2007 that CU finally canned Churchill, a decision praised by many and condemned by radical faculty members. CU publicly maintained that he was fired not because of his controversial political views, but due to other legitimate evidence relating to his professional misdeeds.
Churchill fought back. In 2009, Denver jurors heard his wrongful termination case, after which they agreed with Churchill's attorney, David Lane, that Churchill was fired not because of the above legitimate concerns, but rather as retaliation against his decision to exercise constitutionally-protected free speech.
While I rooted for CU during the lengthy trial, I now find myself more concerned about something much more important than one crappy professor's civil rights. We should all be concerned about the health of our judicial process.
Taking emotion out of the equation, here's what we've got. A public employee was fired. Jurors said he was fired unlawfully. And now, we've got a Court of Appeals' response saying that CU's elected decision making body, its Board of Regents, should be immune from the consequences of failing to fire this employee for the right reasons. Maybe jurors got it wrong. After all, Lane is a force to be reckoned with in the courtroom, known for winning unwinnable cases representing some of society's most despised public figures (full disclosure and of ultimate irony: Lane is now also my lawyer, where through a federal civil rights lawsuit, I'm one of several plaintiffs arguing that Colorado lawmakers violated the constitution by imposing unconstitutional restrictions on petition rights). But the political debate over whether jurors were correct doesn't excuse the Court of Appeals from its obligation to uphold the law for the rest of us.
As Chen explained further to Law Week, the Court's finding that the university's investigation into Churchill's behavior did not constitute an adverse employment action could provide public employers greater cover in future efforts to retaliate against protected speech.
"Even if the decision makers found misconduct on his part, the evidence seemed to indicate that the investigation wouldn't have been initiated but for Churchill's controversial speech. This part of the decision has troubling free speech implications as well," he said.
The Court's determination that CU's actions didn't constitute an adverse employment action let CU's Board of Regents off the hook for Churchill's legal bills. I cannot believe I'm saying this. Deep breath here. CU should pay.
Ultimately, CU is to blame for the case even getting this far. Time and again in the years prior to Churchill's now infamous essay going public, Churchill's fellow professors, as well as his students, and others outside the academy, raised serious questions about his behavior.
Instead, CU blindly promoted Churchill through the academic ranks rapidly, doing so in spite of the fact that he lacked basic professor credentials, believing somehow that this white dude parading around as a member of an American Indian tribe legitimately furthered the university's desire for ethnic diversity on its faculty.
Now we're left with a court decision that does nothing to encourage our universities to reevaluate their almost theological obsession with diversity at all costs. The Regents are off the hook for Churchill's speech, leaving them little incentive to think twice before treating other employees similarly in the future.
"There are all sorts of manners, some overt and some subtle, in which public employers can retaliate against their employees for engaging in speech on public matters," Chen said. "The more the law allows them to disguise their actions, and the harder it makes it to prove pretext, the greater the jeopardy to public discourse."
As Lane has recalled to reporters, he lost the popularity contest once and for all when he made the decision to stick by Churchill. Even his criminal defense clients, including accused murderers, have questioned the morality behind this commitment. But if law is morality, than Lane may just be on the right side of wrong-headed justices here.
Churchill needed to go. And he's gone now. But what we're left with something may make us all a little worse off. Should public employers be able to fire you because of what you say? Sometimes, yes and sometimes, no. When a jury says no, however, and a Court reviewing your case says your boss shouldn't be held accountable, something is wrong with our judicial system.
Something tells me we haven't heard the last from Churchill. He'll keep fighting until he can fight no more. We can only hope that in the meantime, CU will head back to class (thankfully not Churchill's) to brush up on its obligations under the Constitution.
Jessica Corry is a Denver-based attorney with Hoban & Feola, LLC, and also serves as director of the Independence Institute's Campus Accountability Project. She is currently working toward completion of her first book, Victim Nation, as a Phillips Foundation Robert Novak Fellow.]]>DUI Pot Bill Could Lead to Wrongful Convictionstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7955212010-12-12T12:53:20-05:002011-05-25T18:20:30-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/
As 9News' Adam Schrager reported Thursday, state Rep. Claire Levy, a Boulder Democrat, is championing a plan to treat those who get behind the wheel while under marijuana's influence similar to those who drive drunk.
Here's the problem. While existing scientific technology can, in most cases, accurately test whether a suspected drunk driver has a blood alcohol level at or above the .08 legal limit, attempts to apply a similar standard to those accused of driving under the influence of marijuana (equal to five nanograms of marijuana's main component, Tetrahydrocannabinol, according Levy's plan), do not provide an accurate assessment of a driver's intoxication.
When it comes to alcohol, evidence of consumption generally leaves a person's blood stream within eight hours, meaning that if it's in someone's system, chances are very good that consumption came within this time frame. But with marijuana, THC can stay in the human body for 30 days or longer. Also problematic, most jurisdictions do not employ testing that adequately distinguishes between "active" and "inactive" THC (the active ingredient in marijuana).
THC blood tests are also problematic given that two individuals of identical weight, height, and THC blood levels could demonstrate dramatically different levels of intoxication, a fact tied to differences in frequency of use, strain of marijuana consumed, as well as other biological or medical conditions.
Also at issue is human error. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation is currently reviewing several dozen blood tests that were used by Colorado Springs prosecutors to charge or convict DUI defendants. While these cases involved alcohol, they demonstrate, at minimum, the flaws that can come from even the most minor testing methods or equipment errors.
While Colorado Attorney General John Suthers told 9News that "virtually everybody at that (five nanogram) level would be impaired, unsafe to drive an automobile," national experts vehemently disagree.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects."
The NHTSA also cautions that blood tests may not accurately reflect actual intoxication due to differing impacts tied to various methods of ingestion, most commonly in a smoked or vaporized form, or more recently, through THC-infused edible food products.
Blood tests don't also account for how frequency of use factors into a person's intoxication. Marijuana is like most other drugs, including everything from caffeine to cocaine, in the sense that a daily user can build up a tolerance to specific amounts, and thus function at a much different level than the once-a-week or once-a-year user.
Ultimately, the NHTSA concludes that "it is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone...It is possible for a person to be affected by marijuana use with concentrations of THC in their blood below the limit of detection of the method."
The devil will be in the details for Suthers and Levy. Suthers says he is motivated by the goal of helping give clarity under the law for all involved, ideally freeing up court dockets now too often clogged with a flurry of experts testifying as to many of the same NHTSA findings expressed above.
The legislature should proceed with caution. Absent essential protections for the accused, including a right to testing that would accurately distinguish between "active" and "inactive" THC in the blood, as well as the right to have blood retested at a reasonable cost by a certified lab, Colorado's courts could become even more clogged by those defendants wrongly accused and eager to take their cases to trial.
While the effort to deter drivers from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated is laudable, especially given the recent surge in medical marijuana patient registrations, the wrong bill here could do far more damage than good. As our nation's history has proven time and again, even the most solid of public policy goals can be derailed if faulty or inadequate science is allowed to serve as the foundation for determining guilt. Let's join together to deter and punish driving while high or drunk, and as part of this effort, reject science that won't also exonerate the innocent.
Jessica P. Corry (www.JessicaCorry.com) is a Denver-based attorney, where she serves as special counsel to Hoban & Feola, LLC, and where her practice specialties including medical marijuana civil and criminal law.]]>Monday Matchup: RTD to Face Basketball Mom and 1,000 of Her Closest Friendstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7951552010-12-10T15:27:52-05:002011-05-25T18:20:30-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/
The married mother of five, Kim is active in school booster clubs, local politics, and rarely, if ever, misses one of her kids' sporting events. I know because when I catch her on the phone, there is constant background soundtrack of basketball games or kids running around.
I met Kim when she came into my law office looking for legal help. Armed with three-inch research binders filled with information on RTD's latest controversy, she alleges the transit agency, together with Adams County and a private out-of-state developer, may have violated administrative, state, and federal laws through their quest to radically transform her community.
At issue: While RTD had previously committed to locating a commuter rail station for its Gold Line on a blighted plot just east of Federal and 60th Avenue, the agency is now backtracking, also considering a site previously rejected for a multitude of reasons. The news hit just a little too close to home for Kim.
Should the the New Orleans-based TOD Group have its way, RTD's station would be located a quarter mile west of Federal and 60th, adjacent to Lake Sangraco, a wildlife haven Kim, her husband, Alan, and others have spent nearly two decades rehabilitating.
In just a few months, Kim's one-woman crusade has grown into Citizens for Compatible Development, a grassroots force to be reckoned with. The Gillans filed litigation against Adams County, RTD, and the out-of-state developer pushing for the move, alleging that the defendants violated local and state land use procedures. (Full disclosure: my firm does not represent Gillan in this litigation). The developments garnered a front page Denver Post profile. Gillan's group has gathered more than 1,000 signatures from supportive neighbors. They object to the county's preliminary approval of zoning changes that would free the defendant developer from existing rules, freeing the way for a high-density retail and commercial center to tower over Lake Sangreco. The new rail station would be the hub of it all.
The possible move is curious. After all, RTD had already rejected the lakeside location, doing so after completion of a multi-year, multi-million dollar analysis, at the completion of which it selected a site just east of Federal. This original site yielded strong community support, seen as a viable opportunity to revitalize a struggling commercial area.
Don't mistake Gillan as some anti-growth busybody. She's anything but, having recently earned the support of the Colorado Property Rights Coalition, well-respected engineers, transit specialists, federal environmental experts, and ordinary citizens across the political spectrum. They're upset that RTD, an agency proclaiming its commitment to environmentally and fiscally sound transportation policy, could now expose taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation and unnecessary logistical costs.
It's been nearly 20 years since the Gillans and their close friends and family took the real estate plunge by investing in the dream of what could become of Lake Sangreco, then nothing more than a run-down eye sore. Many said it could not be done, not there, not in that neighborhood. Today, Aloha Beach is a thriving middle class community, anchored by nearby the Berkeley and Goat Hill neighborhoods. The wildlife is immense, including falcons, pelicans, herons, cormorants, foxes, lesser black-backed gulls, beavers, and even the occasional eagle. For many area children from disadvantaged background, including those from the Mount Saint Vincent Home, the lake marks their first meaningful outdoor adventure.
While Kim's opponents see high density development as an opportunity to breathe new life into the area, Lake Sangreco has already achieved this goal. On Monday, Dec. 13th, the Adams County Board of Commissioners will take up this issue as part of a broader dialogue on county zoning policy. Many in Adams County and beyond will be watching, a testament to the passion and foresight of Kim and others like her who believe in the power of each of us to improve our communities, even if only one lake or one hearing at a time.
Jessica P. Corry, Esq. (Jessica@JessicaCorry.com) serves as the director of the Independence Institute's Property Rights Project and as special counsel to Hoban & Feola, LLC, where she regularly advises clients, including Kim and Alan Gillan, on land use public policy.]]>Cary Kennedy's Shameful Final Daystag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7754372010-10-28T17:09:52-04:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/
Maybe she really did believe that higher taxes were good for Colorado's children. I could agree to disagree.
That all changed this week, however, when Kennedy launched an all-out, utterly sleazy attack on her Republican challenger, Walker Stapleton. I get that she's down in the polls and that statistically speaking, she may see going negative as her greatest hope to hold the office.
But a recent commercial implicating Stapleton for criminal activity for which he was never convicted crosses the line. In the scarce days leading up to next week's election, the left-leaning Denver Post editorial page took the time to characterize Kennedy's attack as "a low blow" and "a cheap shot," pointing out that Kennedy deliberately relied on "erroneous online reports" instead of facts so as to raise "unfair suspicions."
Denver's NBC affiliate also analyzed the attack as part of its "Truth Test" series, calling Kennedy's tactics "misleading," saying they included unfounded conclusions not based on fact or evidence.
Why would Miss Congeniality do this? Let's pause for a minute to remember the issues that Kennedy is trying to avoid talking about, and why she is losing in every poll taken to date.
First, she authored the budget-busting state spending mandate known as Amendment 23, a move which has plunged Colorado into fiscal chaos through its failed pledge to improve our state's public schools.
Second, she proudly championed the state's mill levy freeze, hiking our property taxes by nearly $4 billion just when Coloradans can least afford it.
Third and fourth, and honestly too many times to count, she helped Governor Ritter disguise tax hikes as "fee" hikes so voters couldn't have a say in whether we should pay more to government--a questionable move for a leader charged with protecting our voice from other forces in state government.
Finally--and from a long term perspective, potentially the most devastating to Colorado's public employees--she did little more than rearrange deck chairs in the ongoing battle over how to save our Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) from imploding under the weight of its own multi-billion-dollar unfunded liabilities. She simply couldn't find the courage to take a stand against powerful lobbyists despite evidence of proven alternative fixes.
It wouldn't be fair to blame Kennedy alone for the 100,000 jobs Colorado has lost on her watch. But what is correct is to question why she hasn't had the guts to fight against policies that have driven our state's largest employers elsewhere in search of more favorable business environments.
These are the issues where Stapleton has kept his focus, refraining from personal attacks, and instead offering thoughtful solutions to the problems we face. The distinctions drew few fireworks in debates, and even fewer front page headlines. Certainly, if attention if what Kennedy wanted, she got it.
Kennedy could have chosen a better path. One with integrity. She could have and should have defended all her taxing and spending on their merits. If she believed in the choices she made, she should stand behind them. She could have and should have explained her allegiance to budget busters like Governor Ritter and President Obama. She could have and should have said why she's willing to let PERA get away with accounting fictions that could leave hundreds of thousands of Colorado workers without the retirement safety net they funded for decades.
But she didn't do any of the above. Instead, she waited until the last minute and lashed out with cheap-shot half truths that have nothing to do with the job Colorado taxpayers need their treasurer to do. Shame on Cary Kennedy, now revealed to be just another typical career politician who will do anything to save her job.
I have to admit I was already going to vote for Stapleton (as I've written for this site before, I've long considered him a good friend and an innovative businessman), but it was going to be without at least some minimal regret that I'd be voting against his very nice opponent.
I no longer have any regret. Kennedy made the decision easier for me. And at the end of the day, I will sleep well at night--a luxury she may have just thrown away for herself all in the name of shortsighted political gain. ]]>Pro-Pot Conservatism Takes to National Stagetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7740172010-10-26T10:49:43-04:002011-05-25T18:05:23-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/I dared to make the case that liberals should support Tom Tancredo's third-party bid for governor. Some of you rejected this call as some far-right conspiracy to confuse voters. Thanks for the flattery. I only wish the right could get so organized.
While we can--and should--continue debating candidates in these final days before the November election, Tancredo and his support for ending the federal government's war on marijuana is now officially etched in print. Newsweek, more specifically.
In a cover story for this week's magazine, titled "The Conservative Case For Legalizing Pot," correspondent Eve Conant profiles Tancredo as one of several national Republicans who have vocally supported legalization throughout the course of their campaigns.
Conant's thesis: "You'd expect aging flower children to fight for the right to get high. But aging conservatives? As the ideals of the Tea Party's most vocal libertarians infiltrate the Republican ranks, and state and federal officials slash budgets even as they pump cash into an expensive war on drugs, some conservatives are making the case for legalizing marijuana."
She's right. And even some of the right's most vilified social conservatives are seeing the light, including Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who have called for varying degrees of decriminalization or legalization).
This is not to say that pro-pot GOPers (myself included) don't face a stark partisan divide when it comes to our efforts to gain support. Newsweek's own survey found that just 25 percent of Republicans nationwide favor legalization of pot in their state, compared with 55 percent of Democrats.
But there may be a better way to ask this question: With the GOP grasping to earn the support of younger, more libertarian voters, will a pro-pot vote put the nail in any competitive Republican's race? Tancredo's increasingly vocal stance on legalization in recent weeks suggests otherwise. According to a Rasmussen survey, he's now within striking distance of frontrunner Democrat John Hickenlooper.
While Ann Coulter may ignorantly proclaim that pot use is "a gateway to becoming a total loser," it is our loser of a federal government that continues to flush billions of dollars down the toilet every year in the name of a failed prohibition experiment. This is the exact type of argument that only harms Republican efforts to gain electoral support.
And Coulter's views look more extreme by the moment. As I conveyed to Conant, I got a much different response after a series of national media appearances laying out the conservative pro-legalization case, when I was "deluged with e-mails of encouragement from both sides of the aisle. Some came from evangelical home-schoolers and Vietnam vets who'd never voted Democratic, all just saying, 'We're with you.' I was stunned."
The tide is turning. Real conservatives are starting to see the light. The Drug War is bankrupting us--morally and fiscally.]]>The Liberal Case for Tom Tancredotag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7666972010-10-18T13:11:38-04:002011-05-25T18:05:23-04:00Jessica Peckhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/a national poll showed former Congressman Tom Tancredo, a third party candidate for governor, polling within just four points of frontrunner Denver Major John Hickenlooper.
Considered a long shot since his campaign announcement this summer, Tancredo and his last minute surge begs a question not yet pondered by most strategists or voters: what would his victory mean for Colorado? Strange but true, it might just mean a handful of policy goodies long championed by progressive liberals.
No doubt a polarizing public figure, Tancredo's passionate one-man campaign for immigration reform played center stage in his ill-fated 2008 presidential bid. Unfortunately, lost in translation was the fact that he possesses a strong libertarian foundation that, when communicated the right way, is both moderate and pragmatic.
Regarding immigration, and in the tradition of the late economist Milton Friedman, Tancredo believes we need to make a choice: we can either have open borders or we can have a welfare state. Combining the two, however, provides disastrous economic and societal consequences.
With Mexican drug dealers engaged in a murderous rampage of a race to meet America's ceaseless demand for marijuana, Tancredo has seen the light. The easiest way to disarm drug cartels is to legalize domestic marijuana production and consumption, thus removing much of the incentive to smuggle drugs into our country.
This is not to say Tancredo pro-pot. He doesn't have to be. Instead, he's a realist in search of solutions. Decades of prohibition have led us to a point where nearly half of all adult Americans admit to having used pot, and nearly a thousand Colorado inmates are behind bars to the tune of $30,000 a year for no offense greater than having tested positive for marijuana use while out on parole or probation.
Our children are picking up the tab. For each U.S. citizen born today, he or she is handed an invoice for $45,000 as their share of our national debt--much of which is owed to foreign governments who would love for nothing more than America to default on its loans.
We can no longer afford to accept business as usual. While Tancredo has found himself in hot water various times over the years for off-the-cuff public statements, he's running in a year when anything less than a demand for dynamic and radical reforms should be seen for what it is--generational child abuse.
Too often dismissed as a law-and-order conservative, his Congressional record demonstrates repeated support for an amendment to the Department of Justice funding bill that sought to prohibit any federal money being used to "enforce drug laws in contradiction to state law."
Tancredo cares about our kids--and he cares enough to question each and every aspect of how our government treats them. He has questioned the federal government's role in education, going so far as to call for abolishing the U.S. Department of Education. Regardless of how voters receive this position--or if they can grasp its complicated justifications--the bottom line remains the same: Less money spent on pot prohibition could directly fuel funding for schools.
Prior to his tenure in Congress, Tancredo taught at my public junior high school. This is not a guy who hates kids. Rather, he's an advocate for eliminating red tape and bureaucracy at a time when America's students continue to lose their competitive advantage against their peers around the world. Not only are we stealing from our children's pocketbooks, we're also damning them to adulthoods of global inferiority.
Without detailing the August soap opera of a roller coaster that led to the Republican Party's unfortunate nomination of Dan Maes as its candidate, it is worth noting that Maes now finds himself polling at just over 10 percent, an especially pathetic performance given that the average Republican candidate in Colorado can expect a five to 10 point generic advantage over his or her Democratic challenger.
In 2010, Colorado voters split their voter registration nearly evenly between Republican, Democrat, and Independent, with a growing number expressing increasing skepticism about the role or integrity of a two-party system.
One of the direct beneficiaries of this frustration: Tancredo's candidacy on the ultra-conservative American Constitution Party ticket. Certainly, a vote for Tancredo is a vote against the status quo. Hey, he'll certainly take it.
But there is also another, more interesting element. He's a liberal in the truest sense of the word. Over-the-top at times, yes, but with his finger directly on the pulse of the outrage and fear permeating this year's election. Don't confuse him with the ACP. As he's proven once before, he sees political parties as vehicles--and he'll dump one for another if he believes it will help him achieve his goals.
When voters fill out their ballots just days from now, they'll face three distinct choices.
First, they can support Republican Maes--an arrogant and ignorant social conservative who personifies the worst stereotypes about conservatives, and who despite filing for bankruptcy himself, frequently punctuates his speeches with calls for personal responsibility.
Second, they can elect Hickenlooper, a moderate Denver Democrat who has governed the city with the same skills that made him a successful businessman. A savvy public relations animal, he thrives in raising capital and expanding services. It worked in the private sector, but now that he's playing with taxpayer money (after successfully championing voter-approved tax increases to the tune of billions of dollars) his ongoing support for new symphony seats and public art funding seems downright classist--burdening small business owners and working families on the brink of falling apart financially. He claims he'll cut spending as soon as it's "economically feasible"--but as his track record offers any hint (as I've analyzed previously), this day will likely never come.
Or third, Colorado can choose Tancredo, a passionate activist who despite years in Congress still comes across a little rough around the edges. This is where I'll hang my hat. He gets the things that matter most to me. No, he won't woo you with his oratory skills, he'll inevitably shock you at times, but ultimately, he's proven himself to be the best candidate we've got to turn this state around.
Let's get scrappy. Let's get lean. Let's forget the two-party dinosaur for a moment. And in celebration of one of the most ironic political twists Colorado has seen in nearly a generation, let's elect a candidate who abandoned his political party in the name of a larger cause--saving our state from the dire consequences of good intentions gone bad.
Vote Tom Tancredo, the conservative, liberal, progressive, open-minded stalwart we need in 2010.]]>
