The Denver Post’s Spot blog reported today that Colorado House candidate Don Beezley apologized to members of the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition for his disparaging comments about the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As posted on a Broomfield Democrats website, Beezley said, that the “ADA took other human beings from being someone with a challenge whom it might be a joy to help, and turned them into a burden. An enemy.”

The Post did not ask Beezley if he opposes the ADA. So I asked him, to fill in the journalistic gap.

He told me he supports the government insuring that people with disabilities have “access.” But he’d prefer that the state, not the federal government, make its own laws like the ADA. He’d rather not see the federal government involved.

Nonetheless, despite his frustrations with the federal ADA, he supports it.

Particularly because some Republicans are apparently referring to Rep. Paul Weissmann’s (D-Louisville) redistricting bill as gerrymandering, journalists might be tempted to equate the Democratic effort this year to the GOP “midnight gerrymander” in 2003. If they are compared, reporters should be careful to spell out the big differences. Otherwise, casual readers could be easily confused.

Expect news coverage this week about Weissmann’s House Bill 1408, passed out of committee Tuesday, to repeal a 2004 GOP law that dictated criteria that courts should use – and the order in which the criteria should be weighed – to map out Colorado’s congressional districts, if the Legislature does not agree on how to do so before the 2012 election. 

Congressional redistricting will occur in 2011, based on the results of the 2010 census.

The Republicans’ 2004 statute was passed after a 2003 GOP redistricting law was found unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court. The court ruled that the GOP-controlled Legislature didn’t have authority in 2003 to pass an election-mapping law after a judge had already created new legislative boundaries after the 2000 census—and an election had already occurred.

An April 22 Denver Post article sets up the discussion of Weisman’s bill this way:

In 2003, Democrats lamented a “midnight gerrymander” by the legislature then controlled by Republicans, a plan courts threw out. Now Republicans – in the minority in both houses – are complaining that Democrats are trying to ram through a plan to “rig” future elections by marginalizing voters in predominantly Republican rural areas of Colorado.

The Post article goes on to accurately describe how the procedures and tactics being used by Democrats today are different from those used by the GOP in 2003. But you have to read the story carefully to grasp the magnitude of the difference.

To avoid confusion, reporters should lay out a few facts for readers, when Republicans equate the events of 2003 with Weissmann’s legislation:

• Weissmann’s bill is technically called a “late” bill, but it was introduced about a month before the session ends. In 2003, the GOP introduced the gerrymander bill in the State Legislature three days before the session ended, suspending rules and circumventing committees to ram it through in three days.
• Weissmann’s bill has been the subject of one hearing so far, and Republican views are being incorporated into the bill, according to Denver Post’s Spot blog. (Republican Rep. Carole Murray voted for the Weisman bill in a committee vote.) In 2003, debate on the GOP bill was curtailed repeatedly, as the legislation was rammed through without any Democratic support or input.
• Weissmann’s bill would make statutory changes in advance of the 2010 census. In 2003, the GOP passed its bill after the census count occurred, after reapportionment had occurred, and after an entire election had gone by.

Reporters should be clear about the differences between the redistricting debate occurring today and what’s now widely viewed as the gerrymandering that we saw in Colorado in 2003.

Chronology according to the Dec. 2, 2003, Rocky Mountain News:

Jan. 25, 2002: District Judge John Coughlin redraws congressional map after lawmakers can’t agree on one.

May 9, 2003: Gov. Owens signs redistricting plan into law. Democrats file challenge.

Dec. 1, 2003: The Colorado Supreme Court throws out GOP map. (GOP federal appeal was denied in June 2004.)

Education gets big headlines year around, not just when an education law like SB191 is being debated at the State House. There are the CSAP tests, the graduation rates, the international comparisons, school rankings, and so on. The news is mostly bad, and the impression you’re left with, even if the reporting is broad and comprehensive, is that our schools and teachers aren’t doing their jobs well enough, particularly in urban areas like Denver.

But what if we had an annual parade of front-page stories about the success rates of our other public programs on the front lines of the battle against poverty?  What’s the “graduation rate” from public housing? From the “free lunch program?” From drug-addiction programs? From poverty itself? Is Colorado making progress in these areas?

My point is that education gets too much media attention, relative to other problems related to poverty in America. I haven’t done a bean count to document this, if one could be done, but who doubts it?

And with the media spotlight on the schools and teachers, legislation like SB191 naturally becomes a hot button story and issue, with various interest groups clamoring to be heard and seen.

So journalists are right to give serious play to SB191, but in doing so, reporters should take every opportunity to illuminate the big-picture issues of school funding and the effects of poverty on education.

“To get a school that serves truly disadvantaged kids to the point where it could actually focus on teaching and learning is going to require infusions of resources that we haven’t even begun to think about, just into the school, let alone the community,” Rona Wilensky, the former principal at New Vista High School in Boulder told me.

If you look through the news coverage of SB 191, you find one perspective that’s predictably under-emphasized: the view that passing any new education laws isn’t necessarily the way to improve public education in Colorado.

“They are looking for a simple answer to a complicated problem,” Wilensky told me of the legislative effort in Colorado. “Getting rid of bad teachers is not the solution to all our educational woes. We have the schools we have because we want these schools. They serve a function in our society. Why would we have them if they didn’t work for us? And everything in our system supports them being the schools they are. To change this in a really fundamental way, to equalize school achievement, means overturning the effects of social and economic inequality, which we’ve built our society around. “

Call me a socialist if you must, but don’t you think this perspective should be seen more in coverage of education reform—because what Wilensky says reflects a reality that you miss in education reporting that too often focuses on the latest narrow bit of education-specific data.

People tell me all the time that The Denver Post isn’t bothering to cover local elections, like State House races, for example. I usually defend The Post by saying that the paper has to set priorities, and just how many local elections are there in the metro area? A ton.

And besides, the newspaper does provide online resources with lots of info about local candidates. In an interview in Feb., Post Political Editor Curtis Hubbard told me that The Post may provide more coverage of local political races in its YourHub supplement. And this seems to be happening, though I haven’t looked at the YourHub coverage in a systematic way.

So with space for local elections at such a premium, it’s a surprise to see stories about State House races in The Post, like today’s piece about three pimaries for House seats.

But the piece was a major disappointment with a focus mostly on minor squabbles and sparring among candidates–without single serious local issue spotlighted.

The article covered the District 4, 5, and 9 State House races.

The coverage of the District 4 race focused on whether Dan Pabon got special treatment. No evidence was cited by The Post, though it reported that complaints had been lodged but no verdict rendered; a Democratic spokeswoman ”feared” that the caucus results might have to be tossed.

The portion of the article on the District 5 race centered on a hostile email exchange between a Cristina Duran supporter, not affiliated with Duran’s campaign team, and candidate Jose Silva.

As for the District 9 portion of the article, it focused on a dispute over whether a Republican party official should have pointed out that one candidate was on probation for a petty offense of disturbing the peace.

I think fights among candidates are important for voters to know about. How they are handled by candidates is illuminating.

But with so little ink available for these races, and no money or serious judgment calls involved yet, I think the focus for The Post, especially for the print edition, should be on the issues. And god knows there are many at play at the Legislature, including education, the budget, the environment, and many more. Next time, pick a couple issues tell us where the candidates stand.

In its coverage yesterday of House Speaker Terrance Carroll’s draft plan to modernize election registration rules, The Denver Post stated that “Capitol Republicans have cast the legislation as an attempt by Democrats to skew elections in their favor, and one that could endanger the integrity of elections.”

The Post should take a look at the provisions of the draft bill and report whether, in fact, they would do this.

One provision, same-day registration, doesn’t favor Democrats or Republicans, according to Curtis Gans, Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University in Washington D.C.  

Gans was quoted yesterday by Post columnist Vincent Carroll, who mocked attempts by liberals to expand voting opportunities as ineffective and inviting fraud. But Carroll did not argue that the draft election registration reforms would benefit Democrats over Republicans, as you might expect, given the initial partisan rhetoric that emerged Tuesday. http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_14832170

Vincent Carroll quoted Gans as stating that high voter turnout (as opposed to same-day registration, specifically) hasn’t helped Democrats more than Republicans and that same-day registration, specifically, increases voter turnout only marginally.

I called Gans today and asked him if he believes same-day registration, specifically, benefits Democrats or Republicans, because this wasn’t clear from reading Carroll’s column.

“I think it’s not predictable at all,” he answered. “We have been shown that it’s not predictable one way or the other. There’s plenty of evidence.”

He added: “So long as a state does not have a history or likelihood of abuse of the registration system— fraudulent registration, voting in the name of dead people, that sort of thing—there is no harm and maybe a little good that can come out of election-day registration.”

Colorado has no such history of election fraud, as far as I could find.

I asked Gans, “What’s the little good that can come of same-day registration?”

“The good part is, that if people get interested in the election closer to the election, they don’t have to sit it out because they’re not registered,” he told me. “That’s the good part. It enhances the opportunity to vote.”

If Gans is correct, the election-day-registration component of Terrance Carroll’s draft bill is not the reason Republicans are telling The Post that they think Carroll’s plan is an “attempt to skew elections” in the Democrats’ favor.

As Carroll’s plan is debated, The Post should explain why Republicans think elements of initial draft bill are unfair or inviting fraud and offer different views about whether Republican objections are reasonable. This would be a useful addition to the debate.

If you read today’s Denver Post editorial about the draft “Modernization of Elections” bill, you’d be excused for thinking the bill is dead for this session.

The editorial discusses the draft bill mostly in the past tense–and argues that it should be taken up next session, with modifications.

The first sentence of the editorial reads:

“An interesting set of election reforms that merited consideration has been shelved at the Colorado legislature.”

Actually, the bill has NOT been shelved for this session, according to a reliable source.

And something else you wouldn’t know from reading The Post today: County clerks support the draft bill. More on them later.

The website ColoradoSenateNews.com posted a piece yesterday titled, “Measure to save local governments money defeated by Democrat-controlled committee.”

Contrary to what the headline says, the measure would actually have resulted in a letter being sent to Congress asking the EPA to review a bill–again.

Not much money saved by local governments in that.

But here’s the strange part.

The ColoradoSenateNews piece quotes Sen. Ted Harvey as saying, “In a time of economic scarcity, this measure would really have helped keep the cost of local water projects affordable and saved taxpayers’ money.”

Then, in the next paragraph, ColoradoSenateNews contradicts its own headline, and Harvey’s statement, by explaining what the resolution would have actually done.

“Senate Joint Resolution 18, sponsored by Sen. Ted Harvey, would have asked Congress to encourage the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider an appropriation bill that put retroactive Davis Bacon requirements on water projects.”

As a journalist, you don’t want to regurgitate a quote containing misinformation–unless you correct the quoted statement. In this case, ColoradoSenateNews set Harvey–and its own inaccurate headline–straight.

Despite its name, ColoradoSenateNews.com may not qualify as a journalistic entity, but in this case, it sort of acted like one. Afflicted with schizphrenia, that is.