Appendix C: 2000-2006 Election History and Analysis

When political pundits discuss Colorado, there are multiple factors that drive election in Colorado. For Democrats, the Denver, Boulder, Pueblo, and Adams are considered Democratic counties. Conversely, Douglas, Mesa, Weld, and El Paso Counties are strong Republican areas. In the early 90s, Jefferson, Larimer, and Arapahoe Counties are weakly Republican, and have been changing as of late to more independent. These eleven counties form ~80% of the voters in the state of Colorado.

An additional factor in state elections is the geographical issues that divide the state, first and foremost, water. The regions I use are the regions used in the demographic studies done by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). In Figure 1, a pictorial representation of the five regions of Colorado is displayed as according to DOLA, along with the location of the 11 largest counties with respect to voter population. The Western Slope and the San Luis Valley have an excess of water as compared to the Front Range and Eastern Plains. This is due to the smaller population and most of the most of the mountain ranges are west of the Continental Divide. Water from snowmelt will flow to the Pacific Ocean via the Colorado, Yampa, Gunnison, or Dolores watersheds. These western watersheds have been tapped by the Front Range through numerous water diversions. The Western Slop generally distrusts the Front Range due to its population advantage over the rest of the state and the water issues. The Eastern Plains also has water issues, since water laws are derived based on when you claimed the water right. Since the Plains were the last to be settled, generally they have younger rights than some cities, and cities have been buying out elder agricultural shares for urban use. The southeast corner of the state was one of the hardest hit regions in the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, and the issue of agricultural rights versus urban rights is still a large concern.

Figure 1. Colorado county map, showing the overall geographical regions in the state as defined by DOLA. The eleven largest counties by population are also labeled, which hold over 80% of the population in Colorado as of 2006.
Western Slope - Blue. Central Mountains - Gray. Front Range - Green. Eastern Plains - Yellow. San Luis Valley - Red

While a majority of the state is lightly populated, the largest population centers straddle the foothills of the Front Range. Water transfers across the Continental Divide began in 1920s, and there are 24 ditches or tunnels that transfer water to communities along the Front Range. Additional transfers have become protracted legal battles, proving to be difficult to implement. In terms of political affiliation, Republicans outnumber Democrats by 150,000 people, or 6% of the voting population. However, unaffiliated voters are the second largest voter group, accounting for a third of the voters in the state. In the past fifteen years the overall proportion of Republicans has slowly declined while the number of independents continues to grow. Judging from landslide elections, there is roughly a 40% base of Republicans and 35% base for Democrats, with a tru unaffiliated 25% that will vote either party.

In 1992, state demographics show a registered voting population equally split between Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters. In the population boom that occurred in the 1990s, over a million additional voters were added, and these voters shifted the state to 36% Republican and 30% Democrat. In most regions of the state, the percentage of Democrats decreased overall due to a slower rate of growth than Republican voters. Another thing of note is that since 1976 there had been split control of government, with a Democratic governor and a Republican legislature. Until 2002 the Colorado Supreme Court was completely made of appointees of either Governor Lamm or Governor Romer. This Democratic influence over the judicial branch will prove to be a boon to Democratic causes in later elections.

Influential amendments also passed in the 1990s that effected Colorado's long-term political future. Term limits were passed in 1990, limiting state assembly members to eight years in a single district. As a result, no winners from the 1998 election are still serving in the same seat as they were then. Terms limits began to take effect in the 1998 election, but the term limits on the U.S. Congressmen were struck down in 1995. Only state and county officials adhere to the term limits defined in the amendment. This has already produced a complete turnover in the State House, but there are State Senators who were elected to the State House in 1998, seventeen in total (7 Republican, 10 Democrat).

As of 2006, there are no people who have transitioned from the Senate to the House. Both Senator Chlouber (R-Leadville) and Senator Owen (R-Greeley) tried and subsequently lost in the 2006 general and primary election, respectively. In 2000, Senator Weddig was term-limited and successfully ran for a House seat, serving for four years until becoming an Arapahoe County Commissioner. In theory, a legislator could stay elected for as long as they wanted, just not to the same seat after eight years. The pathway from State House to State Senate is seen as a step up, so the reverse when tried is generally done after 16 years in office and appears to be a ploy to stay in power.

In addition to term limits in 1990, 1992 had both TABOR and Amendment 2 pass. Amendment 1 was give the name Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, or TABOR, in 1988 when the first attempt at passage was made. Amendment 2 was the controversial anti-gay amendment. TABOR had failed multiple times prior to 1992, but finally passed due to strong election turnout and the general anti-tax mood in the state. The passage of Amendment 2 surprised people in the state, and the lawsuit began immediately. Amendment 2 was struck down in both the State and U.S. Supreme Court for violating equal freedom, with rulings that Amendment 2 discriminated against gays and lesbians. In the rest of the 1990s, the amendments that passed were relatively minor in comparison, with the exception of the Campaign Finance amendment in 1996. Amendment 15 put strict donation limits on campaign, but was a statutory measure. These limits were sued as being too low and too restrictive, and the legislature began to alter the caps in the 1999 legislative session. The groups backing the amendment petition again and the limits amended into the constitution in 2002.

TABOR has influenced nearly many elections through the structural budget effects TABOR required. TABOR limits the growth of government to inflation plus population growth, unless the population votes to rescind those limitations. However, the growth calculations are based on the prior budget year, which means that if spending is lower than the allowed amount, that additional revenue is lost. During a recession, this commonly occurs, and was termed the "ratchet" effect. From 1992 to 2000, revenue easily exceeded the spending limit, and TABOR refunds were given to taxpayers. This subject is described in detail on other sites. In the 14 years under TABOR, only two statewide referenda have passed altering TABOR's restrictions. On the local level, TABOR has been easier to circumvent.

In addition to these amendments, the map redistricting in 1992 was not advantageous to the Democrat Party, as redistricting made some districts highly Democratic and the unforeseen voter registration shift made some seats that were marginal difficult to capture. For the Senate, there were 5 Democratic majority registration senate districts, all designed to allow for minority populations to have enough votes to choose a senator of their own race. Three of these were in Denver, and is a partial reason to why Denver had a Republican State Senator, Sen. Dottie Wham. Even after redistricting, this district is still the most Republican senate district in Denver. The 1994 election made the retaking of the House a long term project, while for the Senate the results were limited due to the seats up for election that year. The voter registration shift also damaged the district that were created and produced a difficult environment for Democrats in general.

In the 1998 election, there was no change in Senate, and the Democrats picked up a single seat in the House, reducing the margin to 40-25 gap. In the Senate, there was still a 20-15 Republican majority, but there was a chance for the Democrats in the next cycle. In 1998, Sen. Grampsas died in office and a 2 year election was required, similar to Sen. Boyd's election in 2006. For the 2000 election, term limits again would produce a high turnover rate in the state legislature. Term limits for ten senators, out of the 18 contested districts, would create a majority of open seats, some which had been held for 22 years. On the House side, twenty of the 65 seats were term-limited. Some of these seats would easily be competitive and the term-limited House members would run and contest Senate seats.

For Democrats, a takeover of either chamber would be required for greater leverage in the reapportionment process. Democrats chose to focus more on the State Senate than a seven seat swing in the State House. Eight senate seats were considered potentially open, and Democrats would need five to regain control, and only three were held by incumbents. Sen. Reeves (D) in Fort Collins and Sen. Arnold (R) in Adams County were vulnerable, and conservative Sen. Congrove (R) was challenged by Sue Windels. Republican primaries also skewed conservative in 2000, all but one going to the conservative candidate. In addition, Doug Bruce, the author of TABOR, lost in a primary in Colorado Springs.

In the general election, the Democrats won five of the eight seats, and gained a 18-17 majority in the Senate. Senator Congrove lost to Rep. Sue Windels in District 19 (Northern Jefferson County), Rep. Ken Gordon (D) won against Republican Representative in the open seat created by term limits for Sen. Wham, and Joan Fitz-Gerald won in District 13 (which becomes SD-16 in 2002). In the house, multiple seats switched, resulting in a net gain of 2 Democratic seats. Figure 2 shows the current representatives, color coded dependent on the party. Each election year has the same state map, only with different coloring dependent on the makeup of the State House and Senate.

Figure 2. A map of Colorado denoting the districts held by Republicans and Democrats within the State House and Senate for the 2001-2002 session, using the 1990 redistricting plan. The two purple colors are used to show the regions where party control is mixed. 18-17 Democratic Senate, 38-27 Republican House.

The 2001-2002 legislature would only directly control the U.S. House District redistricting process. The addition of the seventh district meant the Republicans wanted to gerrymander most of the Democrats into two districts, while the Democrats wanted to create balance if possible. Since each party only controlled one chamber, the process quickly stalemated and the courts were forced to decide. They chose a plan crafted by Democrats, which created two safe Republican seats, two strong Democrat seats, and three seats ranging from likely Republican to a swing district. At this point, the Colorado Supreme Court was still dominated by appointees from the two prior Democratic governors. Figure 3 shows the relative strength of each party compared with one another by county.

Regardless of the election results, the state legislature redistricting process is controlled by an eleven member committee. The state reapportionment committee is composed of four members appointed by the Supreme Court, four by the legislature, and three by the governor. This committee was amended to the constitution in 1974, to remove the legislature from setting its own boundaries. The legislature positions are generally two Republicans, two Democrats, chosen by the majority and minority leaders of each chamber. These plans are invariably sued due to certain regions believing their representation has been diluted or gerrymandered. During the 1991 redistricting, then Governor Romer (D) appointed three Democrats, making five in total. The Supreme Court appointed three Republicans and one unaffiliated, the law dean of the University of Colorado at Boulder. The dean would later try to run for the U.S. Senate as a Democrat, but lose in the primary. In 2001, Governor Owens (R) appointed three Republicans, and the judicial appointments were all Democrats, creating a 6-5 majority. Figure 3 shows a map of Colorado with counties colored dependent on their Republican and Democratic voter percentage.

Figure 3. Colorado county map, with counties colored dependent on the Democratic versus Republican party registration as of November 2006: 13 counties actually have plurality unaffiliated voters, including Adams, Summit, Clear Creek, and Garfield Counties. Scale ranges from +60% D to +60% R.

For the 2000 plan, instead of making majority-minority districts, the plan crafted by Democrats took a different approach and maximized the potential seats available to win. The original submission had to be revised after a Supreme Court challenge due to some county splits that were deemed unconstitutional. It is quite obvious the state plan is favorable to Democrats when a majority of the opponents suing for revisions are Republicans or counties with large Republican majorities. To explain the skill in the redistricting would be another entire article, one that will be discussed in a later article.

In 2002, there were three main seats in play in State Senate, which had the razor thin Democratic majority. Maryanne "Moe" Keller (D) was running against DA Steve Jensen (R) for the district vacated by Sen. Ed Perlmutter (D), and Sen. Stan Matsunaka's seat was also term-limited, with Rep. Steve Johnson (R) running against Kathy Gilliland. Rep. Johnson was the likely winner of this seat. On the Republican side, Senate District 11 is located in the heart of Colorado Springs and Manitou Springs. The district and a similar house district were designed by Democrats to be competitive seats in the heart of El Paso County. El Paso County Commissioner Ed Morse (R) was running against a former TV anchor, Tony Marino (D). In the House, Mike Merrifield (D) was running for the above mentioned El Paso house district.

The House seats in general were more fluid, as Democratic takeovers were expected; Republicans were expected to do the same in a number of seats. The general belief was there would be a gain, but not a large one. The only Senate seat to switch parties was Sen. Matsunaka's seat, and the Democrats lost the house after having a majority for two years. In the House, a net gain of one Democratic seat was realized. Representation by party of each district is seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4. A map of Colorado denoting the districts held by Republicans and Democrats within the State House and Senate for the 2003-2004 session. The two purple colors are used to show the regions where party control is mixed. 18-17 Republican Senate, 37-28 Republican House.

Stan Matsunaka, who was term-limited, ran against Marilyn Musgrave for the 4th Congressional District seat and lost in 2002. The senate seat left open was won by Steve Johnson, and the senate changed back to Republican control. Multiple seats in the State House switched parties, with five seats changing from Democratic to Republican. Paul Weissmann in HD-12, Carl Miller in HD-56, Buffie McFayden in HD-47, and Mike Merrifield in HD-18 all won contested elections, while Rep. Hodge replaced a Republican seat in Adams County. Conversely, Bob McCluskey and Ramey Johnson won in seats similar to previously formed seats, and HD-43, a newly formed Highland Ranch-based district became a Republican seat.

Term limits worked against Democrats in 2002, since Sen. Matsunaka could have held his seat or diverted resources from other potential contests. While the Democrats won the Senate in 2000 with the help of term limits, they also lost the Senate due to term limits. Of seats that changed in 2002, McCluskey and Johnson will later lose their seats to Democrats, and Carl Miller's seat will stay Democratic but is now occupied by Rep. Dan Gibbs.

The newly created 7th Congressional District had a mandatory recount, with Bob Beauprez, the former GOP Chair, defeating Rep. Feeley by 121 votes. So far, the redistricting had done nothing for Democrats, as the U.S. House Delegation was 5 Republicans - 2 Democrats. Senator Allard also won re-election, as the campaign was mostly negative ads. As the incumbent, he was held to the same margin against the same opponent in 1996.

Having regained control over both the legislative and executive branches of government, Republicans were back in their dominant position after a small road bump. Senator Allard (R) was re-elected, and Governor Owens (R) was mentioned as a candidate for the White House after cruising to re-election in 2002. Yhe Republicans claimed the Democratic Senate was a bump in the road. However, the 2003-2004 session for Colorado was not a pleasant political arena. Multiple factors would create a giant political mess and cause major damage to the Republican Party.

Issue 1: TABOR, Amendment 23, and Colorado's Budget

Constitutional amendments were about to force the budget into an untenable position. In short, the amendments added to the Colorado Constitution were going to cripple the government of Colorado. In one corner, there was the TABOR amendment requiring the state budget growth to be limited to a certain level, based on the budget of the prior year. If the revenue and therefore the budget spending were to drop one year, the increase for the next year would be limited to the lower base total. This is the TABOR ratchet, and produced a significant loss of available budget spending. In another corner, Amendment 23 was passed in 2000 and used income tax dollars collected over the TABOR limit to fund mandatory increases in education spending. This increase was inflation plus a percentage point. In addition, while TABOR limited tax revenue, the Arveschoug-Bird Spending Limit was a law passed trying to head off TABOR. It mandates a growth of 6% of the prior budget year spending.

The recession combined with the ratchet made Amendment 23 even worse. Since Amendment 23 used TABOR refund money to finance increases in K-12 education, the refund money wasn't there and put additional strain on the budget by requiring budget cuts in other areas. A brief explanation of the proposed fixes is impossible, but the short story is that the Governor and Legislature failed to produce any consensus on how to fix the budget problem. They were close, but never got there. The Bighorn Center and other groups proposed and collected signatures for two voter amendments, one of which would strip the ratchet effect in TABOR and change the spending cap to a fixed percentage of the state economy. The second would allow for increases in Amendment 23 to be stalled if certain revenue growth criteria were not met. The petition drive collected enough signatures, but did not turn them in because of the lack of support. Without bipartisan support, neither issue would pass. So nothing happened, and more budget cuts were on the horizon even while TABOR refunds would be dispensed to taxpayers. With a Republican Legislature and a Republican Governor, the failure to produce any plan was a problem.

Issue 2: Republicans Bill Priority

The Republican controlled government decides to go for the brass ring and pass everyone of their long term goals at once. Consider this truncated list: HB 03-1160 - Colorado Opportunity Contract Pilot Program (School Voucher for Private Schools). This passed on a party line vote, except for Rep. Ramey Johnson (R), who voted with the Democrats. The bill is declared unconstitional by the Colorado Supreme Court and eventually the U.S. Courts. The only statewide referendum on vouchers failed by a 2-1 margin.

SB 03-236 - Water Infrastructure Revenue Bonds (Referendum A). Referendum A is likely one of the most misguided attempts for water planning attempted in the state. It would have allow $2 billion dollars in spending on new water projects, which antagonized the Western Slope. This money was not designated to specific plans, leading to further concern over what the bill would allow. After three years of extreme drought, opponents of Referendum A attacked the plan as fear mongering. The Referendum failed badly.

SB 03-352 - Colorado Congressional RE-Redistricting. The mid-term re-redistricting of the U.S. Congressional boundaries hit the news only due to overall dramatics that were require to pass the bill. Bills are required to be read thrice before voting, and Republicans chose to simulatenously use three people to accomplish this. The Democrats walked out of the chamber, and Ken Salazar sued and the plan was tossed. Since this was done right before the end of session, this was the main headliner, not any thing else accomplished.

While there was effort on fixing the TABOR/Amendment 23 problem, Republicans were split on what should be changed, and Democrats were adamant that both be changed. No special session was called on to fix this problem. I will add more as a continue to research - if anyone has focus group scorecards from the 2004 session I would be grateful for a link to them.

In the buildup to the 2004 election, the Senate was viewed with a better potential another potential switch or bigger majority, with three seats identified. Suzanne Williams (D) was term limited from her Representative seat and now running as a strong challenger for Sen. Cairns (R) in southern Aurora. Two open seats, both held by Democrats, also received strong challengers. In District 14, which is Fort Collins, Mayor Martinez (R) and Rep. Bacon (D) were predicted to have a close battle. Likewise, District 17 pitted a former county commissioner, Sandy Hume (R), against Brandon Schaffer (D). In the House, there were a few seats that still remained competitive, most of them in the metro area. In particular, the western and northern suburbs had four seats with strong challengers. Gwyn Green had a fractured Republican party to her advantage in HD-23, where Ramey Johnson had won in 2002. Strong candidates were also recruited for close districts in 2002, including 29, 31, and 33. These districts form an arc from I-70 in Jefferson County to Thornton in Adams County.

In addition to the two problems above, other factors contributed to the mood of this election:

1. Republican's rightward trend. Republican legislature majorities were seen as a counterweight to the Democratic governors in the 1980's through 1998. These Republican majorities then were balanced by moderate Republicans as compared to right-wing Republicans. There were right wing Republicans in charge in the 1990s, Doug Lambourn is a prime example. However, they were a balance to a Democratic governor. In addition, the Republican registration advantage only began in 1994, and the primaries started to favor the stronger conservative, producing a more polarized legislature.

2. The Big Four Democratic Donors. Rutt Bridges, Pat Stryker, Jared Polis, and Tim Gill were all multimillionaires who had made or inherited fortunes during the 1990s. These four donated millions to Democratic 527 groups, attacking Republican opponents and supporting Democratic ones. Called the four horsemen by some, they created 527 groups to supporting good candidates and attacking bad candidates.

3. Drought. In 2002 there was a significant problem with water supplies in the state, and Governor Owens' solution was Referendum A, which lost badly in 2003. The Western Slope read the referendum as an open declaration that they (they = Front Range) would take water from the Western Slope river basins and use it to water lawns in Aurora. Politicians who disagreed with this viewpoint found themselves in a tenuous position with a fraction of the electorate.

4. Referendum and Amendments. Amendments and referenda on the ballot may have also played a role. Amendment 36 was designed to require 10% renewable energy by 2015 in the state, and the FasTracks RTD issue was a Denver Metro area referendum on expanding light rail throughout the region. A third amendment would raise tobacco taxes to fund health care. These were generally seen as motivators to Democrats, and allowed for Republicans to be negatively portrayed if they did oppose one or all of them.

In general, these problems were not seen as catastrophic to Republicans or believed to be minor impedances to election, and most predicted a State Senate takeover at worst. In the U.S. House races, it appeared that John Salazar (State Representative - AG Ken Salazar ran for the U.S. Senate) would win in the Western Slope district over Greg Walcher, a Referendum A supporter. The other Salazar, Ken, appeared to have a small lead over Pete Coors in the U.S. Senate, and most predict President Bush winning Colorado again. On election night, the Republicans lost a total of seven House seats and Senator Cairns also lost, leading to as Democratic majority in both houses. The three losses in the metro area were from Democratic challengers beating incumbents. The other four were all located outside of the Denver metro core, and all four were term limited Republicans. To speculate on how many of these seats would have been held with the incumbents running is difficult, since other factors caused a significant fraction of the shift from Republican candidates.

Figure 5. A map of Colorado denoting the districts held by Republicans and Democrats within the State House and Senate for the 2005-2006 session. The two purple colors are used to show the regions where party control is mixed. 18-17 Democratic Senate, 35-30 Democratic House.

Some of the lost seats had particularly poor candidate choices for the Republican Party, running far to the right than the demographics would suggest. In 2004, the most obvious and most detrimental case was Mesa County Republican Shari Bjorklund, who said her conservative interests were more important than Western Slope issues. She was a candidate in a Western Slope district, District 55, making the comment politically lethal. She subsequently lost in a district with 45% Republican registration to Bernie Buescher, the Lt. Governor candidate in 1996. The slate of candidates included Jessica Corry, a Independence Insitute member, a right wing study group, Ramey Johnson, who was attacked from the right for not supporting school vouchers, and Greoger, who was caught up in a sign stealing incident. Greoger is by far the best, as fliers were distributed against her primary opponent, showing him yanking a Greoger sign out of the ground. The problem was, it was at his own house. The issue followed her campaign, even after denying all invovlement.

In 2005, Governor Owens and the Democratic Legislature produced Referendum C and D, a fix to TABOR to allow for the budget to keep TABOR refunds for five years, stopping the ratchet effect from breaking the budget. This aligned moderate Republicans and Democrats against the anti-tax wind of the Republican party, including people such as John Caldera. Business groups sided with Owens, creating a strange alliance from center-right to far left. Consider the numbers involved, $4.7 billion in 2005, Referednum C won a close victory, 52-48. The partner bill to fund road construction projects, Referendum D, failed by a small margin.

At this point I must bring up the fact that partisan R-D-U percenatages are not a indicator of performance in this state when it comes to referendum. El Paso County, a stronghold for Republicans, has had a majority of voters on medicial marijuana, strong gun control, and Amendment 23 while against Doug Bruce's later TABOR amendments. In general, regions where Republican legislators were supportive of Referendum C gained had lower NO voters than the regions where it was cast as a partisan referendum. Caldara's general incompetence running a large opposition campaign caused numerous gaffes were he would point out seemingly outrageous expenses only to see them justified, or worse, they were lauded as good deals for the state. Referendum C created a rift in the Republican party, as Owens was now considered a sellout to the Democrats. One of the main problems was that Democrats had split the Republicans, and now that the budget crisis was fixed, the Democrats could take a majority of the credit.

While Governor Owens and the Democratic Assembly did work together at points, Owens vetoed numerous bills along the way. With Democrats in control of the House and Senate, a total of 91 bills were vetoed, 44 in 2006, and 47 in 2005.

In 2006, Republicans and former Democratic Governor Dick Lamm were planning a voter initiatied amendment to cut off all funding to illegal immigrants, and allowing citizens to sue government to enforce this law if they believed it was not being upheld. For all of the current complaining about Governor Ritter, Lamm helped defeat the 1976 Olympic bid, ran for the Reform Party presidential nomination in 1996, and for a board of directors seat on the Sierra Club on an anti-illegal immigration platform. But I digress.

The petition was stuck down by the courts, causing a huge uproar over the illegal immigrants that were, because of the rejected petition, causing chaos in this state. Governor Owens and the Democrats eventually agreed to a special session, and passed anti-illegal immigration laws, including a law requiring government ID for most public services. Ironically, the budget disaster does not require a special session, but illegal immigration did. They also placed two constitutional amendments on the ballot, one to fine employers of illegal immigrants, and one to force the state to sue to federal government over the costs of illegal immigrants in the state. This uproar both helped and hurt the Democrats, but the topic of illegal immigration fell to the wayside for the election. The Latino community was not pleased with their actions, and the passed bills have likely cost the state money. The only positivie is that they are bills that can be modified, unlike the proposed amendment.

In 2006, Democrats played defense and attack, since open seats both threatened control and provided more opportunities for seats. The threatened seats for Democrats were Senator Deanna Hanna's seat, which was in a 2-year interim cycle due to Hanna's resignation over a threatening donation letter to a homeowner community. Rep. Boyd took over the seat, and the Republican from the other half of the district, Rep. Knoedler, was challenging her. This seat was by far the most vulnerable Senate seat, due to the circumstances of the election. For opportunities, the two best opportunities were weaker Republican incumbents. Gail Schwartz (D) was a CU Regent who was raising a significant amount of money to challenge Sen. Lewis Entz (R). The other challenge was in Colorado Springs of all places, were a swing district was carved out of the inner core of the Springs. In 2002, the race was close, with Sen. Morse (R) winning in a close race. He was challenged again.

In the House, the Republicans has open seat opportunities in multiple places, along with first time incumbents to challenge. Sen. Owen (R) would challenge Rep. Reisberg (D) in HD-50 in Greeley, while Sen. Chlouber would try to regain a house seat in HD-56, a district held for the past four years by Democrats. Bernie Beuscher (D) would also have a tough re-election campaign because again, 45% Republican registration. There were also seats in Jefferson County, but they were percieved as slightly more difficult than the previously mentioned seats. The issue in the House was there was a Republican open seat in the house, HD-38, that would likely go Democratic. A Democratic Iraqi war veteran running, Joe Rice, was running for the seat, and Rep. Joe Stengel (R) had been implicated in problems of his own.

In 2006, nearly all Republican primaries resulted in the more conservative campaigner winning. The only outlier was Don Marostica, who spend over 100,000 dollars in the primary to secure his election. In most cases, these seats were in Republican areas, such as El Paso, Weld, and Douglas County. The strange part is that the candidates were of the more moderate manner in the swing districts, but they all lost in the Democratic wave.

For Republicans, three house seats would be required to win back the House, and only one in the Senate. The theory for Republicans was that if they could hold their two incumbents and defeat Boyd in SD-21, they would regain the Senate. However, problems cropped up along the way.

The Trailhead Group was the Republican answer to the Big Four Democratic millionaires, a counterweight to allow for ads to counteract the Democratic 527 groups, which could spend large amounts of money. Democrats attacked the Trailhead Group for various ethical and fininacial violations, trying to discredit the group. The Democratic 527 groups were competetive financially, and the Democratic candidates were generally raising more money than the Republicans.

The Governor campaign of Bob Beauprez did not go well. The mood in the country for Republicans wasn't great to begin with, but he also did himself in. It is easier to do this portion in a semi-cronological list:

He supported Referendum A, which on the Western Slope, means you are a jackass.
There were a number of ill-timed Congressional votes and PR sessions, including visiting NREL in Golden while just having voted to cut funding to NREL. Others included the lack of a illegal immigration bill through Congress, and helping energy companies get expedited drilling permits.
Both Ways Bob: Marc Holtzman was running in the primary as well, only to lose the caucus and fail petitioning onto the ballot. However, he left us with Both Way Bob, a catchy nickname for Beauprez.
Both Ways Bob then process to actually earn his name, changing positions on Amendment 38, Referendum A, Mexican ID cards, and many others.
Verbal gaffes, including innacurate statements on abortion rates in African American communities, knowing what "Mexican Time" is, and his Lt. Governor choice comparing homosexuality to bestiality.
An attack of Bill Ritter backfired, as the information was illegal obtained from a federal criminal database. This was generally percieved as the final nail in the coffin.

Predictably, in the 2006 election Republicans lost big. Ed Perlmutter (D) won Beauprez open Congressional seat, and Democrats picked up two seats in the State Senate and three in the House. In the span of 3 election, the state went from a state with a Republican trifecta to a state with a Democratic one. In 2006, four of the five state assembly seats that switched were defeated incumbents, with only one open seat changing.

Figure 7. A map of Colorado denoting the districts held by Republicans and Democrats within the State House and Senate for the 2007-2008 session. The two purple colors are used to show the regions where party control is mixed. 20-15 Democratic Senate, 38-27 Democratic House.

In comparison to 2002, the areas where Democrats now represent have expanded, forming a C-shape around El Paso and Douglas County. The southern counties of the state which have Democratic majorities have changed from a majority Republican representation to a more Democratic one. In addition, the Democratic area in the Denver metro core has expanded outward, with a block of Democratic districts from Boulder to Aurora.

If one looks at the regions where Democrats have gained seats, some of them are in regions not well suited for long term incumbents, but both Bernie Buescher in HD-55 and Jim Reisberg in HD-50 have been re-elected in districts with 40% Republican registration. Since changing voter affliliation requires going to the County Clerk's office or during a renewal of a driver license, any change in voter affiliation will be a lagging indicator to their actual performance.

Moderates versus Conseravtive Republicans

The conservative versus moderate split is a significant factor in the loss of multiple seats over the span of this retrospective. The statements that the Republicans have taken a rightward tilt is not necessarily correct. Doug Lambourn was once the House Majority Leader, and moderates generally lost to conservative candidates in leadership elections. The main difference then was that Republican moderates could win primaries, and marginal districts were generally moderate candidates. Norma Anderson, Dottie Wham, and Bill Swenson all were moderates and successfully re-elected multiple times.

In the 2000 election, Senator Mike Feeley (D) was term-limited in District 21. In the Republican primary, Phil Pfiffner and Linda Morton would go on to face Deanna Hanna (D). Linda was a moderate and the former mayor of Lakewood; Rep. Pfiffner was a staunch conservative. Rep. Pfiffner won, and Deanna Hanna proceeded to beat Pfiffner by 8%. Most believed that Morton would have crushed Hanna in the general, and Pfiffner now runs the Colorado Union of Taxpayers, an anti-tax think tank group. Senator Hanna won re-election in 2004 by a even wider margin. In 2006, after she had to retire due to scandal, this seat was the best hope for the Republicans regaining a majority in the State Senate. Of course, the moderate candidate would have won it easily in 2000.

An interesting comparison is both statewide and local shifts in voting patterns. To show the shift in voting patterns, the most best data set I currently have is the Owens (R) - Schoettler (D) race in 1998 as compared to Coffman (R) - Gordon (D) in 2006. Both races were nearly 50-50 races, with slight leads to the Republican candidate. They are 8 years apart, so it allows one to see if there are any major shifts. Since the candidates are different, this isn't perfect. In Figure 8, any county with less than a 1% shift is pure white.

Figure 8. Voter shift from the Owens-Schottler race in 1998 to the Hillman-Gordon race in 2006. Percentages are corrected for the overall change in voter proportion (0.6%) between the two races. White is zero, with deeper red colors showing a greater Republican vote, and deeper blue showing a greater Democratic vote.

In a macro view such as this, the suburban core showing no significant change is to be expected, as the inner core of suburbs that have turned Democratic in state legislative races are balanced by the newer more Republican suburbs. All four people are from the Denver metro area, removing most shifts based on hometown favorability. The shift in Boulder County is due to the removal of Broomfield County, and Broomfield County defaults to no change in this comparison. There are differences, with the Eastern Plains showing more affinity to the Republican in a 50/50 split, while the southern, agricultural belt Colorado became more Democratic. The two largest counties with significant shifts are Larimer and Weld Counties, going in opposite directions. A significant problem from the Republicans is that the northern suburb growth in Adams and Boulder county have not shown the same Republican vote demographics, blunting the effect of the growth.

Eleven counties account for over 80% of the state's population. The Denver numbers from 2002 are clearly wrong, as they show the amount of registered voters exceeds the population of the city. For the other 10 counties, where the number are at least somewhat more legitimate, the Republican percentage has dropped from 38.3% to 37.3%, while the Democratic percentage is stable (28.4% to 28.5%).

No other races allow for adequate comparisons, since the Ritter-Beauprez election in 2006 and the Owens-Heath governor election in 2002 were both landslides. They only serve a general worst case scenario for a statewide candidate. If the Ritter is re-elected and the Democrats keep both houses, the 2010 redistricting plan could produce a 5-2 Democratic majority, packing the Eastern Plains with the El Paso district and making Marilyn Musgrave even more vulnerable. The 1996 and 2002 Allard-Strickland Senate races would also give an adequate comparison, except I have not added the 1996 Senate race to my database. Once I have, I will add that as well.

In 2008, Republicans will try to roll back the Democratic majority in the State House, while the State Senate provides a remote chance for recapture. A list of the term limited seats for each party is given below.