On Saturday, Scott Gessler continued his campaign against proposed election-modernization legislation, saying on KVOR’s Jeff Crank show that the bill is being pushed by “radical liberals in the Democratic Legislature.”

Crank has a right to see radicalism among Colorado Democrats that I’m missing, but, in any event, Crank surely knows that the election bill has been endorsed by the Colorado County Clerks Association, with support from Democratic and Republican clerks, as well as the Colorado AARP and others.

I looked for Donetta Davidson, Executive Director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, last time I was at Burning Man, but I didn’t see her there.

If you happen to be at any rad gatherings and you want to find Davidson, please click here to see her photo.

Meanwhile, here’s a portion of her biography, as posted by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, after Davidson was appointed to serve on the Commission in 2005:

Ms. Donetta L. Davidson was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by unanimous consent of the United States Senate on July 28, 2005 to serve on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). She was reappointed to a second term on October 2, 2008. Ms. Davidson was elected Chair of the EAC for 2010. She previously served as Chair in 2007 and Vice-Chair in 2008. Her term of service extends through December 12, 2011. Ms. Davidson, formerly Colorado’s secretary of state, comes to EAC with experience in almost every area of election administration – everything from county clerk to secretary of state.

Ms. Davidson began her career in election administration when she was elected in 1978 as the Bent County clerk and recorder in Las Animas, Colorado, a position she held until 1986. Later that year, she was appointed director of elections for the Colorado Department of State, where she supervised county clerks in all election matters and assisted with recall issues for municipal, special district and school district elections.

In 1994, she was elected Arapahoe County clerk and recorder and reelected to a second term in 1998. The next year, Colorado Governor Bill Owens appointed Davidson as the Colorado secretary of state, and she was elected to in 2000 and reelected in 2002 for a four year term.

Scott Gessler likes to soften his repeated accusations of voter fraud by saying his job, as Secretary of State, is to make it “easy to vote but tough to cheat.”

As Gessler told the Conservative Political Action Committee in October:

And I think most people would agree that when it comes to elections, it should be easy to vote but tough to cheat.  And, you know, I’m focused on both efforts.

Actually, if you listen to Gessler, you know he delivers the “easy-to-vote, tough-to-cheat” line all the time.

What’s Gessler thinking about the “easy-to-vote” part of the deal now, as country clerks have initiated a bill, currently making its way through the State Legislature, that would make voting easier and elections more efficient?

He’s opposing the legislation for a number of reasons, one of which is his belief that Democrats are instituting a “partisan advantage,” even though academics agree that voter conveniences, such as election-day and early registration, for example, do not favor one party over the other.

In response to Mike Rosen’s assertion on KOA last week that Democrats will get more votes if they “make it easier for casual and lazy voters to vote,” Gessler said, “You know, I think there’s evidence to support that.”

Rosen didn’t question Gessler. Why would he, since they echo in the same chamber.

So we need a journalist to find out from Gessler 1) where is his evidence that voter conveniences produce partisan results, 2) why it matters anyway, unless he’s against voting, and 3) why he’s against key elements of an election bill that would do what Gessler says he wants–make voting easier?

In his April 9 article about proposed legislation that would, among other things, allow citizens to register to vote through Election Day, Durango Herald reporter Joe Hanel wrote:

Conventional wisdom holds that same-day registration will give Democrats an advantage. However, academics who have studied the idea find the evidence for it is sketchy.

Hanel didn’t cite a specific academic, but his assertion is, in fact, correct.

Not that it matters. Presumably, in America, we want as many people to register and vote as possible, within budget and security constraints, whether they do it picking their nose in the shower or on Election Day at the polls. In other words, the debate about whether same-day registration favors one side or the other is irrelevant, unless you’re against voting.

But, in any event…

I called Associate Professor Michael McDonald at George Mason University, and he told me that early voting and same-day registration may, in some situations, benefit Democrats and, in others, benefit Republicans.

“It depends on the ability of the campaigns to mobilize voters,” he told me. “In different situations, Democrats may win the early vote. Republicans may win the early vote in other situations. It depends on the context.”

In 2010, I interviewed Curtis Gans, Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, about whether he believes same-day registration benefits Democrats or Republicans. Gans is not a Ph.D., but he is a widely quoted independent expert, who’s been associated with American University, the Woodrow Wilson Center, and elsewhere.

“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.”

I called Gans yesterday to get an update on the situation. He told me his view remains the same.

“It’s also true with in-person early voting,” Gans said. “In 2004, the Republicans got the benefit of in-person early voting. The last two elections the Democrats did. It depends on the political climate.”

Colorado’s current practice is to cut off voter registration 29 days before ballots are cast.

“It depends on who’s motivated to go vote,” Gans said, adding that he doesn’t think there’s any dispute among election experts on this point.

In an editorial Monday, titled “Sour Grapes in the Colorado Legislature,” The Denver Post wondered whether the GOP’s hard feelings over gun legislation was spilling over, tantrum-like, into opposition to funding the entire state governement.

The Post spotlighted Sen. Kent Lambert’s March 28 assertion that lawmakers had “effectively banned gun ownership.”

Labert’s statement, The Post said, was “not supported by the facts.”

It’s not a very complicated fact check to make, but, still, it’s worth 1) praising The Post for spotlighting out Lambert’s misinformation and 2) pointing out again that Republican legislators, not just fee-wheeling talk-show hosts, have been repeatedly making stuff up about Colorado’s gun bills, or exaggerating to such a wild degree it’s an embarrassment to representative government.

For example, a week before making his statement that was corrected by The Post, Lambert went even further asking an eager KVOR radio host:

Lambert: And now, you know, with everybody having their guns confiscated or taken away here over the next couple years, almost completely overturning the Second Amendment, what’s going to happen to our crime rate?

Recall that at Denver University debate in January, State Sen. Randy Baumgardner tried to push the misinformation that “hammers and bats” killed more people in America last year than guns did (See video at 24:23.), even though a thinking person would require only a minute to know that’s false.

Who can forget that State Rep. Kevin Priola, a Republican, during one debate at the Colorado Capitol, compared banning some ammunition magazines to putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps during WWII.

Then there was Rep. Kevin Lundberg, who said on the radio that in Colorado, it’s getting “so close” to the point where he’ll be having his gun pried away from his “cold, dead hands.”

There are more examples like these, obviously, and reporters, generally, are looking the other way.

I’m hoping, with the President in town today, the media will have the dignity to call out Republican elected officials if they level this kind of hyperbole or misinformation.

Personhood activists are gathering Thursday night in Highlands Ranch to launch their petition drive to put a so-called fetal homicide measure on the 2014 election ballot.

The initiative would protect “unborn human beings” under the Colorado criminal code, thus allowing for the prosecution of those who commit crimes against “unborn human beings.”

The phrase “unborn human beings” is not defined, leaving open the possibility that all stages of human development, from zygote (fertilized egg) through the end of pregnancy, could be considered by courts as “people” and receive legal protections under Colorado law.

This approach, which mirrors a bill introduced by GOP Rep. Janak Joshi in the Colorado Legislature this year, has been criticized by abortion-rights advocates as a back-door abortion ban, because it could give a fetus legal status and open the door for criminal charges against doctors who provide abortions. Others have claimed it could even justify the murder of abortion providers.

State House Democrats killed Joshi’s bill in January, on a party-line vote, and later the House lawmakers passed a bill that would make it a crime to recklessly terminate a pregnancy (e.g., if a drunk driver hits a pregnant women.) Colorado law already states that intentionally doing so is a crime but not unintentionally.

The Democrats’ bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Mike Foote and Rep. Clair Levy, specifically does not “confer personhood, or any rights associated with that status, on a human being at any time prior to live birth.” (For more details see Melanie Asmar’s Jan. 30 Westword piece on the topic.)

The key provision of the proposed constitutional amendment reads:

In the interest of the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn children from criminal offenses and negligent and wrongful acts, the words “person” and “child” in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act must include unborn human beings.

At the launch of its petition drive Thursday, Personhood activists will hear from Heather Survoik, who was hit by a car when eight-months pregnant, resulting in the death of her baby, which she had already named “Brady.” Hence, Personhood activists are referring to their petition drive as the “Brady project,” or the Brady amendment, according to Personhood USA spokesman Gualberto Garcia Jones.

“Brady and all unborn children should be considered persons,” Garcia Jones, who’s one of the Amendment’s two sponsors, told me, adding that the courts have specifically asked for clarification of the terms defined in his measure, which is titled, “Definition of Person and Child.”

Asked if he thought his proposed amendment would be more successful than personhood measures defeated in 2008 and 2010, Garcia Jones said:

“The prior amendments were more abstract. This is more specific. The opposition will have a harder time saying that this is an effort to criminalize women. We’re talking about protecting unborn children and their mothers who have no recourse for death of their babies.”

The initiative’s language was not challenged and has been approved by the Title Board.

Garcia Jones is hoping that a personhood measure, giving legal rights to zygotes (fertilized eggs) and banning all abortion, will also appear on the 2014 election ballot in Colorado.

The Colorado Secretary of State’s office determined last year that personhood activists hadn’t collected enough signatures to make the 2012 ballot.

Garcia Jones said his organization is “probably going to go to federal court” to seek more time to collect signatures and make the ballot.

If they succeed, personhood backers will have two measures on next year’s ballot.

Both initiatives look the same to Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains spokeswoman Monica McCafferty. They both aim to ban abortion in Colorado, she said.

On Corky Kyle’s “In the Lobby” show March 4, the Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Dudley Brown, said that he could care less about a regulation prohibiting lobbyists from threatening state lawmakers with political retribution for casting a vote.

Brown said “no rule” will stop his gun organization from threatening to throw lawmakers out of office if they don’t vote his way.

Dudley Brown: I can tell you this much, though the claim here might be that you can’t threaten political retribution for a vote, and our actual lobbyist is up for – in front of ethics charges for doing just that, that’s exactly what our organization is doing.  We’re saying, “You vote wrong, and you’re  in a marginal district, we will come out and we will defeat you in the next election, if at all humanly possible.” And I make no qualms about that. No rule in the Capitol is going to stop us from saying that.

Corky Kyle:  Thanks, Dudley.

DB:  Thank you!

CK:  [Off camera]  Bee-yoooo-tiful, dude!

DB:  [maniacal laughter] –get tossed out as a lobbyist.

CK:  Yeah, I know!  Oh, it wouldn’t be the first time somebody said something to me.

DB: Yeah, that would– So, I won’t even say that.  So sorry to say that.  You can’t say that?  Really?!  [inaudible] says that.

[in studio] CK:  All right… [chuckling, to producer] you can turn the rest of that off…

The Legislature’s Rule 36 prohibits lobbyists from influencing legislators “by means of deceit or by threat of … political reprisal…with intent thereby to alter or affect said legislator’s …vote.”

Attempt to influence any legislator or elected or appointed state official or state employee or legislative employee by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic or political reprisal against any person or property, with intent thereby to alter or affect said legislator’s, elected or appointed state official’s, state employee’s, or legislative employee’s decision, vote, opinion, or action concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by him or her or the agency or body of which he or she is a member [BigMedia emphasis]

Kyle chose not to press Brown on his brazen disregard for lobbying rules, which is a shame, because it would have made a perfect topic for Kyle’s “In the Lobby” show, which focuses on the State Legislature, from the perspective of a lobbyist!

Kyle should invite Brown and others back to discuss: Should an outfit (Rocky Mountain Gun Owners) that promises not to abide by lobbying rules be allowed to lobby at all?

Already, as Brown noted in the interview, a Rocky Mountain Gun Owners employee is under investigation for breaking lobbying rules. And Brown has been sued in federal court recently for his alleged role in a political attack ad.

Brown is apparently playing by the rules in his court fight against gun-safety legislation, but, as with his lobbying efforts, he’s taking an extreme tack.

Brown has already threatened a lawsuit, which he’s said even the “NRA isn’t going to support,” to stop Colorado’s new law requiring background checks on private gun sales. Brown has said his suit would stop all background checks for gun sales, noy just private sales.

In their story about the final passage of Colorado’s gun-safety laws, The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels and Kurtis Lee referenced Colorado’s alleged “Wild West” image, both in a headline (“3 new gun bills on the books in Colorado despite its Wild West image”) and paragraph two below:

The bill-signing took place in his office at the state Capitol, 22 miles east of where frontiersman Buffalo Bill Cody is buried, a tourist attraction in a state noted for its Wild West and independent background.

To be fair, The Post should have noted that Hick signed the bills about six miles from Aurora, where a mass killer last summer shot down 12 people in movie theater and wounded 70 others.

But beyond that nit pic, you really have to wonder how much of a “Wild West” image Colorado really has these days, outside of the mind of Sen. Greg Brophy (and even he has a pink gun).

The Post didn’t provide a poll or anything to support its assertion of a Wild West image for Colorado, but you could argue that to the extent it exists, the “Wild West image”  is now completely overshadowed by an outdoorsy, healthy, skiing, pot-smoking image that’s completely in line with commonsensical gun-safety laws.

In that regard, it would have made more sense to point out that Hick signed the gun-safety bills two miles from LoDo, whose busting-out growth is emblematic of Colorado’s dying Wild West image.

In any case, what Hick did yesterday was completely in line with the Colorado’s modern “brand.” Ask all those cultural creatives out there.

The Post’s knee-jerk look back to Bill Cody needs to be revised.

The Denver Post’s Daily Dose and Colorado Public Radio’s “Check and Balance” blogs reported Friday that no one testified against Colorado’s proposed expansion of Medicaid, a key step in the implementation of Obamacare that would provide 100,000 to 150,000 uninsured people in Colorado with health insurance.

CPR Health Reporter Erick Whitney reported on the hearing:

[Republicans] fought Medicaid expansion as part of the Affordable Care Act in Congress in 2009. When it passed, the state’s Republican Attorney General joined the lawsuit against it at the U-S Supreme Court. When the court upheld the law, but made it’s mandate to expand Medicaid optional for states, Republicans tried to win enough votes in the statehouse to say no to President Obama’s plan.

And that led to this small but significant moment yesterday, when Linda Newell, vice chair of the Senate Health and Human Services committee asked:

[State Sen. Linda] Newell: Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to testify? Seeing none, testimony phase is over….

Whitney: That was the sound of no one stepping up to testify against the Democrats’ bill, a quiet admission that President Obama’s party stands united behind Medicaid expansion in Colorado, and the bill is all but guaranteed to be signed by Governor John Hickenlooper.

Whitney should have phoned up some of the Obamacare opponents outside the state Capitol–from Attorney General John Suthers to Rep. Mike Coffman to find out what happened.

These guys have been on the war path against Obamacare ever since it changed its name from Romneycare. Is their absence really a “quiet admission” of defeat? That hasn’t stopped them before. What gives?

As I blogged last year, Coffman specifically singled out Medicaid expansion as a “radical” part of Obama’s health plan.

Coffman said that “there are some very radical elements to [Obamacare] such as the expansion of Medicaid, a government run health care program.”

What’s Coffman thinking nowadays? What about Suthers?

KOA’s Mike Rosen had Duane Liptak, director of Magpul Dynamics, on the air this morning, and so I called in and asked Liptak how he’d feel if a Magpul 30-round magazine were used at the Sandy Hook massacre. I blogged about this topic today. Here’s how my converstation went:

Jason: You make the most popular 30-round magazine, I think, in the country.

Liptak: We are definitely an industry leader in the standard-capacity magazines in common use.

Jason: Right, so what that means, is there’s a significant likelihood that your magazine was used at Sandy Hook, right? And I’m wondering how you feel about that?

Rosen: What a stupid question!

Jason: It’s fair enough!

Rosen: Of course this is a flaming lefty, Jason Salzman.What a moron you are, Jason–

Rosen then hung up on me, ending the conversation. Rosen and Liptak, whose company says it will leave Colorado if the bill limiting the size of magazines becomes law, continued.

Rosen: …What a terrible innuendo.

Liptak: Absolutely.

Rosen: So he’s trying to relate you to Sandy Hook. This is the way the left operates. We’re having a rational discussion here, talking about some of the specifics, the elements, of the bill. And he wants to make that kind of contention. Shame  on you, Jason Salzman.

Liptak: Address the individual behavior and the criminal, not the instrument.

Again, my basic point is that it’s fine to say Magpul magazines are used by Seals, as The Denver Post has reported.

It’s also fair to discuss the possible use of Magpul magazines by mass killers, like the Sandy Hook murderer who used a 30-round magazine like Magpul makes.

In a March 8 article about Colorado legislation limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines for guns, The Denver Post’s Kurtis Lee reported the comment from Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman that magazines from Magpul Industries, a Colorado ammunition manufacturer, were used to kill Osama Bin Laden.

Magpul has threatened to leave Colorado if state lawmakers prohibit the sale of magazines with more than 15 rounds, and Colorado is on the verge of enacting this type of ban, along with a set of other gun-safety laws.

Lee reported:

Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, offered testimony in the floor debate that “reveals members of SEAL Team 6 used Magpul magazines” in the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Lee should have pointed out that large-capacity magazines, like those manufactured by Magpul Industries, are also used in assault weapons like the AR-15, which was the primary gun used in the Newtown Connecticut massacre.

Press reports state that Newtown killer Adam Lanza used 30-round magazines, and check of Connecticut gun shops showed that Magpul brand 30-round magazines are available–though Lanza’s magazines, whether a Magpul or some other brand, could have been purchased from numerous out-of-state sources as well.

Magpul’s PMAG is the most popular 30-round magazine in the U.S., gun expert Mark Walters told NBC News.

I called the Connecticut State Police to find out if evidence shows that Lanza used a Magpul magazine.

“We can’t disclose any of the bits and pieces of the investigation until it’s completed,” said Lt. J. Paul Vance, spokesman for the Connecticut State Police.

Asked if the brand name of the magazine is known, Vance said:

“We seized the high-capacity magazines, and we do know the brand. We do have them in our possession.”

Vance said that when his office’s final report on the Newtown investigation is released, the brands of the magazines used will be made public. A release date hasn’t been set.

Back in December, Vance told CNN details about the primary weapon used in the Newtown attack, including its brand:

The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gun makers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza’s rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode.

Police didn’t offer details about the specific model of the rifle Lanza used. A typical Bushmaster rifle, such as the M4 model, comes with a 30-round magazine but can use magazines of various capacities from five to 40 rounds. An M4 weighs about 6 ½ pounds and retails for about $1,300.

CNN reported that Bushmaster claims to be the top supplier of AR-15s in the U.S.